Really can't make stuff this up. But they did.
- Thread starter LightRoasted
- Start date
glhs837
Power with Control
Here's the deal, in Montgomery County, for "regular" speed cameras. Note the bolded requirement for you to testify at trial. Which has two purposes, both designed to just get you to pay up.
1.Very few people make so little that a 1/2 day or better spent at court is less money than the $40 fine.
- Put the fear of perjury and whatever the hell the fine for that in in your head. Again, perjuring yourself has to carry a higher penalty than $40.
- Note the requirement for a sworn statement with corroborating evidence.
If you were not driving the vehicle for Safe Speed
If you were not the driver, in order to prove that you were not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation, in addition to your testimony at trial, the law requires you to provide a letter to the District Court that states that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation. The letter must be: (1) sworn to or affirmed by you and (2) mailed by certified mail receipt requested. Include in the letter all corroborating evidence. Send your letter in an envelope marked “SPEED CAMERA-NOT THE DRIVER” to: Montgomery County PO Box 10314, Gaithersburg, MD 20898-0314.
glhs837
Power with Control
Ah, you fell for the classic blunder...…..other than getting involved in a land war in Asia, which is confusing Bayside Road, which indeed has had a camera for years, and OLD Bayside Road, which has not. I suspect that the lure of easy money, which has a very strong appeal, convinced then that more cameras means moah MONEY!!!!!!
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Hence why it's just a fine and nothing more (no points, no insurance rates going up, etc)
Part of me just wants to pay up to avoid going through the BS, but in what other parts of your life would you essentially admit guilt to a crime you didn't commit?
glhs837
Power with Control
Yep, program motto - Be the tick and not the mosquito.
The Bill of Rights does not apply when operating a motor vehicle.
Apparently you can sign away your rights, for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle.
In PA that's pretty much what the system is designed to do, convince you not to argue the point.
In PA you can pay up or go to court. The catch is that "court" is not a judge, it's a district magistrate, a politician that's been elected.
The person is not a lawyer and aside for a two week course (or less) has no experience in the law.
You are guilty until proven innocent. Once found guilty you are allowed to appeal to the State Court system through the county court.
BUT, you have to pay the fine, fees and a bail to "challenge" the ticket. Plus you now have to take a second day off from work (if not more).
Most of the roads in PA are "state" highways and therefore have to be marked in accordance with state highway administration regulations.
That means speed limit signs have to be placed at a given interval and notices of a change in the speed limit have to be posted at prescribed distances in advance of the change.
Given the thousands of miles of roads, the state lets the local townships and towns do the upkeep.
That's where the games come into play. They don't mark the roads in accordance with state law. It's "SURPRISE" you just went from 45 to 25 in the space of two feet and now have a ticket. So, even if you know the law, good luck fighting the ticket in court.
It's cheaper to just pay the damn thing and be done with it.
glhs837
Power with Control
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
I was not the driver of the vehicle in question noted in the citation. There are 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. vehicles registered under my name, our names, our company, etc. There are other individuals that at any time have access and permission to drive any one of said vehicles. It is unknown who was driving vehicle listed in citation. (Logs are not kept).
Pretty simple really.
This will work. No names need be submitted. If it's so important. Let the sheriff conduct an investigation into the matter.
I was not the driver of the vehicle in question noted in the citation. There are 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. vehicles registered under my name, our names, our company, etc. There are other individuals that at any time have access and permission to drive any one of said vehicles. It is unknown who was driving vehicle listed in citation. (Logs are not kept).
Pretty simple really.
glhs837
Power with Control
Not that easy. Not the part where you need a statement proving why it wasn't you? On a flight, hotel receipt out if town. Basically you need a legal alibi which you will swear to in court. And you do need to go to court, you can't just mail it in.
Reminds me (again) that those who accuse us, who question the process think we are just criminals looking for an excuse.
Story earlier this year about a cop in suburban Dallas who was caught writing traffic tickets as cover for his lazy ass.
He was writing tickets, based on information he obtained during a "routine" traffic stops, to generate citations to show he was on patrol, when he was in fact not. People generally received them in the mail and simply sent the check in, because they are almost an automatic guilty in court.
So who wants to go to court to be maybe handed additional fees? But one victim of his scheme happened to be related to a ranking officer in the department. She brought her complaint to him, which launched the investigation. The follow on is that the chief of police, in his apology to the public admitted that at one time they used a ticket quota as a measure of an officers performance. But they had eliminated that.
Ten there was the scam in Philadelphia. They found that officers who lived on the border or just outside the city, were writing parking tickets for drivers who offended them. Could be someone who took their parking spot, or flipped them off. Again, how many people can prove you weren't there, and also want to take a trip to traffic court that's not close to home? They simply mail the fine in.
For almost as long as we have been driving motor vehicles on roads, there have been traffic citations. Not disputing some are earned, but there has also been widespread use of the "system" as a way to generate revenue using speed traps and other tactics to nab unsuspecting motorists.
gary_webb
Damned glad to meet you
I was driving past this traffic camera and I saw the flash. I knew I wasn't speeding, so I turned around and went back, and went through it again. Damned if that stupid thing didn't flash again! I double checked the speed limit and even took of picture of the sign, then did it one more time to be certain if I got tickets. Sure enough, a month later I got three tickets for not wearing a seatbelt.
glhs837
Power with Control
I was driving past this traffic camera and I saw the flash. I knew I wasn't speeding, so I turned around and went back, and went through it again. Damned if that stupid thing didn't flash again! I double checked the speed limit and even took of picture of the sign, then did it one more time to be certain if I got tickets. Sure enough, a month later I got three tickets for not wearing a seatbelt.
Where was this? Not in MD, that isnt a thing they can charge here. I see articles saying some cameras have that capability, but nothing saying that capability has been deployed anywhere.
gary_webb
Damned glad to meet you
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
You don't go to court. You write a letter. Read Maryland Law regarding speed cameras. You just say that you don't recall driving that day or not ... in addition to other individuals having access to the car in the picture and all other vehicles you own. Let them investigate. The burden is on them to prove.
glhs837
Power with Control
Hmm, I quoted Montgomery Countys law on this above, which specifically states you need to testify in court. Keep in mind, Maryland law is pretty broad strokes, authorizing counties/municipalities to set up automated enforcement programs with some broad restrictions, but leaving program details up to the counties. Here's PG, Calvert, and Charles County below. Where are you drawing your information from exactly?
\PG County - https://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/FAQ.aspx?TID=20 -
Charles - https://www.ccso.us/automated-speed-enforcement-program/ -
Calvert County - https://www.co.cal.md.us/2066/Speed-Cameras - The fine for violating the posted speed limit is $40.00 for each violation. Violators traveling 12 miles over the posted speed limit will activate the speed camera which will result in a violation notice being issued via the US Mail. All violators may pay the fine or request a court date to contest violation notices. Photo violations do not result in points and cannot be used to increase a person's insurance rates. Operation of school zone cameras is restricted to Monday through Friday, from 6 AM to 8 PM.
glhs837
Power with Control
Here's a funny, looked up Annapolis, they just say if you think it's in error, contact the program Ombudsman. Good news, he's completely impartial, since he's a Captain in the Annapolis Police Department, who are the recipients of the funding windfall that the cameras represent.
Better news, since state law requires counties and municipalities to appoint impartial ombudsmen who have no connection to the program, you could sue!!!! Yeah you!!!! Hold on though, lawsuits have been tried to force counties to obey the state laws and restrictions. Or to force the state to enforce the law they passed. Seems simple, eh? State writes law. county writes conflicting law, or simply disobeys some aspect of the state law. Slam Dunk!!!
Yeah, both times this has been tried, the courts simply said "Silly citizen, you have no standing. If the states wants that enforced, they will do so."
Better news, since state law requires counties and municipalities to appoint impartial ombudsmen who have no connection to the program, you could sue!!!! Yeah you!!!! Hold on though, lawsuits have been tried to force counties to obey the state laws and restrictions. Or to force the state to enforce the law they passed. Seems simple, eh? State writes law. county writes conflicting law, or simply disobeys some aspect of the state law. Slam Dunk!!!
Yeah, both times this has been tried, the courts simply said "Silly citizen, you have no standing. If the states wants that enforced, they will do so."
So the chances are, if you go to court you will still have to pay the fine, AND they will add court costs.
So why would anyone want to waste their time.
Oh, and here's the other part. If you do get a court date, it may not be just one trip, it could be 3 to 4.
There is always the possibility you will show up and the case will be postponed "due to officer scheduling".
You are not going to beat the system. Unlike a criminal trail, the burden of proof is on you to show you are innocent.
The state asserts their equipment is 100% calibrated and all limits are set per the law. But nobody can prove or disprove it.
So why would anyone want to waste their time.
Oh, and here's the other part. If you do get a court date, it may not be just one trip, it could be 3 to 4.
There is always the possibility you will show up and the case will be postponed "due to officer scheduling".
You are not going to beat the system. Unlike a criminal trail, the burden of proof is on you to show you are innocent.
The state asserts their equipment is 100% calibrated and all limits are set per the law. But nobody can prove or disprove it.
glhs837
Power with Control
Of course you will. A few folks have beat them with GPS dashcam evidence. But even then, what have you won? Yeah, you saved yourself $40. And spent a 1/2 day or better out of work to do so. As for calibration, you are correct. That was one of the citizen lawsuits. They used MD's version of the FOIA to get the calibration check records. This was early on, before they just wrote "Contractor shall perform certification and maintina records". Now those records belong to a private company and are beyond FOIAs reach. So, after like two years of effort, they got the records, demonstrated that the department wasn't actually performing the inspections. Went all the way to the State Supreme court, who said. No, no standing for you, go away kids".
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may...
TITLE 21 - VEHICLE LAWS - RULES OF THE ROAD
Subtitle 8 - Speed Restrictions
Section 21-809 - Citations based on speed monitoring systems.
(3) To satisfy the evidentiary burden under paragraph (1)(ii) of this subsection, the person named in the citation shall provide to the District Court a letter, sworn to or affirmed by the person and mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, that:
(i) States that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation; and
(ii) Includes any other corroborating evidence.
I have done it and never had to appear in court. One is just contesting via USPS by certified mail, return receipt requested. If, I am guessing, that the court, or whomever reads your letter, doesn't believe it, then a court date may be set. But I doubt it. The court system would be overloaded.
Well, one does not physically have to "appear in court ". Just by doing with MD Law says:
TITLE 21 - VEHICLE LAWS - RULES OF THE ROAD
Subtitle 8 - Speed Restrictions
Section 21-809 - Citations based on speed monitoring systems.
(3) To satisfy the evidentiary burden under paragraph (1)(ii) of this subsection, the person named in the citation shall provide to the District Court a letter, sworn to or affirmed by the person and mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, that:
(i) States that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation; and
(ii) Includes any other corroborating evidence.
I have done it and never had to appear in court. One is just contesting via USPS by certified mail, return receipt requested. If, I am guessing, that the court, or whomever reads your letter, doesn't believe it, then a court date may be set. But I doubt it. The court system would be overloaded.