It is my belief that these cameras are unconstitutional and really don't make the roads safer. These cameras DO act like a personal ATM for the local city governments around our state. Kingsport has pocketed 1.6 million in court costs alone and 1.7 million in fines, a million of that went to Redflex.

I do have a few questions

Processing centers and custody of evidence:

After the privately own processing center determines guilt, they are then allowed access to TN drivers DMV data by way of the tag number.

1. How can a foreign privately owned company constitutionally be the judge, jury and executioner?

2. How is it constitutional that a foreign privately owned company is allowed access to our private DMV data?

3. How is said personal data transferred and is the personal data stored by the foreign privately owned company?

4. Who else has access to the personal data?

4. How can it be constitutional for possible criminal evidence to be transferred to a foreign privately owned company, a non-law enforcement agency nor are they licensed\certified by the state? (If you fight the ticket then it becomes a criminal offence.)

Courts and costs:

Here in Kingsport, if you pay the ticket it is a civil offence, the cost is 100 dollars that's 50 for the fine and 50 in court cost. The reason the fine is 50 dollars is so it doesn't trigger a trail by jury as provided by the TN constitution. If you fight the ticket it is a criminal offence and more expensive. I think this is sheer "guilt by coercion". If you are not the driver of the vehicle you must assign guilt to another person.

1. In Tennessee does one spouse have to testify against the other spouse?

2. In the case a police officer is writing a ticket for a traffic violation he writes it to the driver NOT the vehicle. It is the police's responsibility to prove the guilt of the person. If they cannot determine who is the driver of the vehicle was how can it be constitutional that the owner is guilty when no such evidence exists (i.e. picture of driver)?

3. How can the city charge court costs when NO court was involved?

RE: "I tell this story to show that the cameras can be a good thing. There is evidence in hand to prove guilt or innocence, instead of just your word against an officer."

Yeah, tell that to the owner of the car who received a citation after the tow truck that was taking it in to be repaired was flashed by one of the speed cameras. Do you actually think that the car owner should have had to miss work to prove that he wasn't behind the wheel of the car that was attached to the back of the truck?
This happens everyday, people.

I hope this address works.

copy and paste

http://i897.photobucket.com/albums/ac179/WillABlige/towtruckredlight.jpg

Seriously, smart people cannot miss seeing the cameras. Smart people know to slow down.

This is government following the mantra of multinational corporations - Profit off the dumbing down of America.

I co-worker received a ticket in the mail from a city located about 8 hours from their home. They had not been to this city. The parking ticket was for their old rattletrap truck that wouldn't even make an 8 hour trip. Apparently the meter maid had written the tag number down incorrectly, and left out any other information about the vehicle (make, model, etc.). After consulting an attorney, they simply paid the fine. It would have cost far more to take off work and make the drive. They could easily prove they were not in the city at the time of the violation, but how do you prove your vehicle wasn't there (borrowed by someone else, for instance).

I tell this story to show that the cameras can be a good thing. There is evidence in hand to prove guilt or innocence, instead of just your word against an officer.

It is FAIR that someone pay if the law is broken. I have never gotten a red light ticket but I know of those who have. It staes that if you were not the one driving the vehicle then to report who was. So what is the problem with that? Absolutely nothing. If your husband gets a ticket and the wife was driving then he can report it as so and let it reflect on the correct persons driving record.

I think we need camers everywhere. Less people would run from the police and they are caught dead in the act. It is so somple.... if you do not want a ticket, do not do anything wrong.

How is it unfair? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're married. As in you are one entity. Shared bank account, house, car, etc. If you decide to run the light, you both pay for it. It's no different than you getting a speeding ticket. Did you husband do it? No. Does it matter? No. It affects your finances the same way. At the end of the day your and your husband share the burden for each others' actions. As for running a bunch of red lights if you get divorced, you're welcome to do that. And you husband is welcome to take you to small claims court to recoup his damages. It probably also wouldn't help your case much to be acting so immature if there are any children involved you'd like to have custody of. These cameras have been around for years and I've yet to hear of a single case where someone takes the exact same car as someone else and runs red lights with a stolen/copied tag. That's just entirely too much work.

RE :Always Right

You are correct. The fine cannot be considered an actual traffic citation unless it's handed to you by a uniformed officer of the law at the time of the suspected violation. I have family in law enforcement and they have confirmed this, and even the KPD has confirmed this by posting a list of those red light bills that have not been paid and have been sent to a collection agency. I repeat : These "bills" have no legal teeth what so ever. A simple internet search can confirm this and several legal experts have even advised people to ignore the so called "citations". You will NOT lose your license, be summonsed to court, or even have your insurance rates increase as a result of ignoring one of these bogus citations. Anyone who tells you differently has not researched the issue and are merely espousing an incorrect opinion, or are trying to further a faulty ideology.

RE: "if you can prove it's not your car cruising through the red light I'm sure the judge will toss the citation."

Where am I going wrong here? How many times can this be explained only to have you ignore the point?

I have NO/NONE/NADA responsibility,legally to PROVE that it's not my car. the burden of proof falls solely on the prosecution, whose case is lost simply because the scenario described is plausible. Yet the court still finds you guilty, because they are acting in their own interests while stomping on your constitutional rights, and your legal right to be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty. There is no "fair shake". You said it yourself : "if you can prove it's not your car cruising through the red light".
Also, I have never received one of these "bills", so no I am not upset because I "go busted".
It is only a matter of time that someone goes to an auto dealership and takes a car identical to one owned by someone else and uses the procedure described in this forum and makes the another driver's life a nightmare by exacting a twisted joke/revenge by having a dozen citations arrive to the innocent person's address two weeks after the test drive was completed.
If there is a such a thing as Karma, I would love to be sitting in the court room while listening to Brother Early, or Jesco White tell this "whopper" of a story. *chortle*

Brother Early- I don't think your comment is correct "about not paying; go right ahead. You'll then be driving on a suspended license".

The fine doesn’t affect your driving record or go on your insurance, I'm pretty sure you just get turned over to collections for failure to pay, I may be wrong on this, but they can't suspend you license, All you have to say is that you never received it in the mail. I have never received a ticket from a Traffic Camera but if I do, I don't plan on paying it and I'll let you know what happens.

Oh, that's classic. First they charge you a "fee" for running a red light even though they can't prove you were the actual person driving the vehicle, so the next step is to suspend the license of an unpaying driver who, in certain situations, wasn't even driving.

These fools in charge certainly like to throw around the word "constitutional" when it benefits them, yet they don't give a damn about charging someone with running a red light yet can't even identify the actual driver.

Maryland Students Use Speed Cameras for Revenge

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/26/2632.asp

Oh and to the comment about not paying; go right ahead. You'll then be driving on a suspended license.

Government officials are ALWAYS under scrutiny. They have no stance to put anything to rest.

If EVERYONE refuses to pay the bills, the city will suddenly not be concerned with "SAFETY" and yank the lights. It's simple. DO NOT PAY the bill.

Give me a break. If someone copies/steals your license plate, they will have to put it on the exact same make and model vehicle in order for this to work. Otherwise you would simply bring your registration in showing the make/model of your vehicle to prove it's not the same as in the photos. Any judge would accept that. Are we really reaching this far into the conspiracy theory bin that this should be a valid concern? As far as innocent until proven guilty, how are you not being given a fair shake? You have a right to trial, problem is the evidence against you is pretty compelling. It's about like getting a speeding ticket. You're welcome to come waste the court's time excusing yourself for speeding (if you have time I suggest sitting in the back of traffic court, you'll really hear some whoppers), but in the end you'll be found guilty. So by all means try it out, if you can prove it's not your car cruising through the red light I'm sure the judge will toss the citation. Otherwise save yourself the trouble and pay the fine. You are not being railroaded. For once, you're being made to obey the law. I know that rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but it's been a long time coming.

RE: "please send me a copy of the citation and proof it was not your car"

Apparently your not getting it. The accused is protected by law to NOT have to prove their innocence. That is what this is about. The cameras and their proponents have disregarded our system of "innocent until proven guilty". They have deemed you guilty and dare you to attempt to prove yourself innocent.
If someone did borrow, or copy, your tag and placed it on a similar car and ran a red light, You would be sent a bill in the mail. If you choose to challenge the charge you will be told that your story is not believable and thus you're guilty as charged. Now that you have failed to prove your innocence you have to pay the $100.00 and for daring to try to exercise your right to a day in court you are fined an additional $25.00.
These cameras and the way in which they are used are being deemed unconstitutional in states all over the country as they will be here someday. On that day, the city of Kingsport will be faced with dozens of class action lawsuits demanding repayment of all those fines plus interest. It's happened elsewhere, and it WILL happen here.

NASHVILLE — A funny thing happened in Georgia after state lawmakers in 2008 required local governments to add an extra second of yellow light on traffic signals using cameras to catch drivers running red lights.

The number of camera-initiated tickets plummeted. So did enforcement revenues. As a result, some towns and cities, where officials previously had lauded photo enforcement’s impact on driver safety, decided to dump the camera program.

“It sort of exposed the myth of why those cameras are there,” observed Dalton, Ga., Mayor David Pennington, a photo-enforcement critic. “The reason that a lot of us were given was (it was) to prevent accidents.”

When Dalton’s first full year of red-light enforcement began in 2008, the Georgia city, using a private contractor, issued 6,906 red-light camera citations, according to figures provided by Dalton police. In February 2008 alone, 624 camera citations were issued.

In February 2009, after the new law took effect, photo-enforcement citations plunged. Just 125 of the citations were issued — almost an 80 percent drop from the previous February.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/nov/30/slight-delay-yellow-goes-red/

Jim, if that scenario plays out as you have described it, please send me a copy of the citation and proof it was not your car and I will eat my own hand. The odds that someone with a green 1951 ford steals your license plate for the express purpose of running red lights is as good as the guy on the alley's article saying that china and japan are preparing to bomb us. If you had a green 1997 honda accord I would give your hypothetical a little thought. However in this case, you have failed.

Be at city hall at 4:30 and be heard.

One thing that does bother me with photo enforcement is if someone borrowed my car tag and put it on another car which was just like mine. Or take a picture of my car tag, print a good quality digital reproduction and put it on a similar vehicle. I can’t claim my car was reported stolen since they just borrowed my tag and returned it and I was not aware of it . I can’t claim someone else was driving and it looks like I have no recourse. I can just see the discussion now. Is this your tag number? Yes! Do you drive a green 1951 Ford? Yes! Did anyone else drive your car on that day? No, it was parked in my driveway all night! Was your car stolen and did you file a police report? No, when I went to sleep, it was in my driveway and it was there the next morning when I went to work! In this case it you decide to take it to court and lose, then you get the points and higher insurance rates.

As the Kingsport BMA debates the future of red-light revenue cameras, I wonder how they would feel if the above happen to them.

The reason they want to "put it to rest" is that evenentually they are going to be respsonsible for reimbursing all past citations and endure many lawsuits once they have been formally declared unconstutional. They might as well dig them up now, or risk bankrupting the city or state once the lawsuits begin.

It appears the BMA is going to do what it wants no matter what the people think the lights will one day be proven wrong.That means a lot of lawsuits against the city. The money they generate should be put to a better use it should all go to the school system to help the children this should make a lot of people feel better than the way it is now and not knowing what it is going for

I live in JC. Haven't gone to Kpt in over two years. I'd love to check out Kpt's improved downtown, but not with big brother looking over my shoulder.

Say NO to tyrant, YES to liberty.

If JC pulls this crap, I'll vote every one of them out, just like we did to David Davis.

If you really came to a complete stop that would have shown up in your video. If that's the case take a laptop to court and play the video for the judge. I don't feel that right on red is the main culprit of these tickets, though many ignorant of the law are certainly committing that infraction. Driving around town over the weekend I noticed that at each camera intersection every single person brakes going into the intersection. And why is that? They're all speeding. People would go flying by me only to start braking just before the intersection in anticipation of a caution light. No wonder there is an increase in rear end accidents. The people here can't be bothered to follow one law, let alone two. So they speed towards these intersections and don't allow themselves a chance to stop at the intersection. I have driven through 3 red light cameras on my way to and from work for over 3 years now and I've never gotten a ticket. I found out that if you just drive the speed limit you are much more certain of what decision to make when approaching the light. You can tell right off from your location when the light turns yellow whether you can safely pass or not. But when you're 10 or 15 or 20 over the limit there's no way to determine that. And the light timing is certainly not made to accomodate speeders. Drive 45 on stone drive and you will get blown away. 55-60 is standard fare on that road. These cameras will remain controversial as long as people driving around here pick and choose what laws they want to follow.

I agree with Mr. J Jones comments.
There are a lot of questions as to ; Are the camera lights making us safer , Are we being treated unfairly to feed the greed of the city, etc.
I feel that it is Very infair to force us to pay more if we attempt to question the ticket. I received a fine in the mail for turning right onto Colonial Hgts Rd. from Ft. Henry Drive. I stopped, had my signal on to turn right, noone was coming toward me so I slowly made my turn. I have been driving for 40 years and never received a ticket. I thought about going to court and was told it would cost more to "fight" it. I am very unhappy with the entire incident. I have been a safe driver for 40 years and just can't find the gratitude for the city's 100.00 fine that is making me "safer"

The cameras work great for catching the car on the violation but if you lend your car to anyone, and they run the lights the owner of the vehicle still has to pay the fines this is wrong. If this is justice then the rules must changed because there are people that do lend there cars to Grand children or their kids who's car breaks down etc.. the person that commits the violation is the one who should pay. The fines are also high because of the split between the city and the people who process the tickets. Is there a way to fight these tickets? that is cheaper than paying the 100$

One thing that keeps getting lost in all this is the fact of civil versus criminal with regard to the ticket. This should be handled in a court of law just like a parking ticket but it is not. This is big brother at it's worst and it only gets worse. Ask anyone who has visited Australia. RedFlex has turned the country into a Orwellian country. We are next....

used to be green-go.
caution slow-down stop.
red-stop.
NOW...
green-go.
caution-go very very fast to avoid ticket.
red-stop.

BLA BLA BLA,

BMA you know its wrong,unconstitutional,and a total violation of peoples rights,in this country you have the right to ''face your accuser'' how do you do that with a machine that can malfunction or ''off settings'' of the equipment.?
this is just another example of YOUR GREED.
in my opinion you're nothing but money hungry.
A** H****

Convenient that the work sessions are held at 4:30 when most people work until 5 or 5:30. They have scheduled these sessions to exclude everyone who works except those who work graveyard. People who work days can't attend, people who work 2nd shift can't attend, people who work graveyard are usually sleeping during the day. So who does that leave, their yes people? Have a scheduled and announced session to discuss this issue one evening. Another tactic is not to announce called meetings so that the general public won't know when it is held.

Alderman Munsey, fact if no one runs a red light they will not have to pay a fine. As to the amount of the fine myself think it shoul be more. Now as to the Police in Mount Carmal I think they are trying to over do it a bit. But here again if you are not speeding you will not get a ticket from either the camera or police. Ther is how ever a big problem with everone trying to be somewhere right now. So they speed try to beat a light what ever it takes to get there right now. Trust me on this next time you are going somewhere leave a little early drive a little slower and you will see something different on each trip.

Short of these cameras falling in the road and blocking someone from T-boning someone. They can never and will never "save a life". They can however cause someone to not have enough money to pay their bills or buy food.

The real problem as I see it is that any local government wants to "put the issue to rest once and for all." This is a widely opposed, highly controversial issue and the fact a goverment doesn't want there to be ongoing discussion on the issue is VERY BAD.

RE: "they do put the officer on the streets and in our neighbor hoods instead of sitting on the side of the road trying to catch speeders.

Not necessarily. In Mount Carmel the cops still sit on the side of the road about 200 yards past the speed camera. They are there every night when I come through and they are running radar, so my guess is that they are doubling their profit by getting you at the camera (which will be mailed to you in 2 weeks) and then they are getting you a second time a few hundred yards away with a ticket you receive immediately.
I have asked someone, more knowledgeable than myself, if this practice was illegal and they stated that ( legality of the cameras themselves aside) being cited twice in such a short distance was not illegal, though it may be unethical.
Well , I guess we should give them credit. At least they are not hiding the fact they they are in it for the money.

Mayor Phillips says "he guesses" the BMA is giving the naysayers an opportunity to vent. Show us where the money goes, dont make us "guess" as to whose pocket it lines.

Seems as though they all want to "put it to bed", would the reason be that its becoming a dream come true for them that has the potential to become a "nightmare" for them if the truth is revealed.

Donna Rowland

Below I posted information off of the kingsport BMA's website. As you can see. We are all "Cordially Invited" to attend this meeting. I recommend that we show up to this one to voice our resentment of these money laundering devices.


Work Sessions are held each 1st and 3rd Monday of each month at 4:30 p.m., City Hall, Small Board Room, 2nd Floor. The public is cordially invited to attend meetings of the Board of Mayor and Aldermen.

Location:

1st Floor, City Hall

Postal:

225 West Center St.
Kingsport, TN 37660

E-mail:

City Manager's Office

Phone:

(423) 229-9400

While your discussing the fines, please address the extortion tactic of charging a second/additional court fee for people who actually exercise their right to appear in court and fail to win their case.
If money is not the main issue, then why did Redflex prevent the city from changing the yellow light timing? Maybe because they knew it would reduce the amount of violations.
What about all of the constitutional issues that Rogersville's city attorney pointed out regarding these revenue generators? These will eventually be deemed unconstitutional and the class action lawsuits will begin flooding in, I can guarantee it.
These machines side step our right to confront our accuser in court. They break state law by not being issued by an uniformed officer at the time of a suspected violation. They also violate the law by allowing a private company to profit from traffic citations and the fact that they now record live 24/7 video, gives a privately/foreign owned company the ability to keep our citizens under constant surveillance.

Even the city confirmed my earlier post regarding these citations. They are NOT citations, they are only a bill they HOPE you will pay. If you don't pay, they send the bill to a collection agency where , if unpaid, simply reduces your credit score a couple of points.
I have an excellent credit rating, so I can much more easily afford a small loss of credit score than I can the hit on my wallet these revenue generators will have.
I strongly urge everyone that receives one of these "citations" , DO NOT PAY !! You will NOT be arrested, nor will you lose your driver's license. These bills don't even place points against your driving privileges, and I have been told that they don't even affect your insurance rates so long as they go unchallenged.
Again, DO NOT pay ! If these are for safety only, then the city will leave them up even if they are not making money. Who wants to take odds on how long they will be around when the money tree dries up?

One city has court cost one does not. How is that constitutional?

“To be honest, once we heard (City Attorney Mike) Billingsley’s opinion on the applicability of court costs in all cases, I think that took the issue off the table for me,” Mallicote said, referring to Knoxville’s lower ticket price. “The reason Knoxville’s is less is they don’t assess court costs. Mike said he thinks that’s unconstitutional, so that’s the end of the story.”

Increase the caution light one second. That would solve all problems.

And the city also needs to post all this information on its city web site monthly.

The statistics they claim they will bring are not sufficient at all.

We need to see how many seconds each yellow light is set for, what the speed limit and driving conditions are at that intersection, and the written report in which the independent traffic engineer recommended the safest timing for each yellow light.

We also need to see records on how many seconds after the light turned was the car in the intersection. Was it 1 second suggesting yellow light problems, or was it 3 seconds suggesting actual reckless driving?

How many tickets were for not coming to a complete stop during a right turn versus actually running the light straight through. Right turns seem to account for most tickets, is that the case or isn't it. If it is, why do they keep saying "running the light", which is something completely different.