Need info on the Current Red LIght Camera laws

[gregintenn]

15 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

Hopefully this will help you. 
 

http://share.tn.gov/sos/acts/109/pub/pc0998.pdf

 

 

I'm interested to know whether Erik's ticket had this printed on it.

[Sam1]

44 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

Hopefully this will help you. 
 

http://share.tn.gov/sos/acts/109/pub/pc0998.pdf

 

 

That's awesome, they basically have to inform you that there is absolutely nothing they can do if you don't pay it lol!

[Erik88]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

I'm interested to know whether Erik's ticket had this printed on it.

It does not. The only thing it says is that no points will be put on my driving record.

I'm not confident we have an answer to this question yet.

Chris, thanks for sharing that though.

[MP5_Rizzo]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

I'm interested to know whether Erik's ticket had this printed on it.

 

39 minutes ago, Sam1 said:

That's awesome, they basically have to inform you that there is absolutely nothing they can do if you don't pay it lol!

Let's say by hearsay I may know of someone who received such pole cop/ red light camera  citation.  The citation did have the required language printed on it.  It also had printed prior to that, This citation must be paid by law.  Upon further reading the law that was cited was the law of the local municipal government.  So there is nothing they can do to force you to pay the fine by mail and they can't come after your for refusal to pay.  The problem begins when stopped by a living breathing law enforcement officer in the same municipal location as the camera cop citation.  Then it seems you may end up paying the fine with penalties to cut out the hassle factor or go to the trouble of hiring representation.

[MP5_Rizzo]

5 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

It does not. The only thing it says is that no points will be put on my driving record.

I'm not confident we have an answer to this question yet.

Chris, thanks for sharing that though.

Was it sent to you from a company in Knoxville, TN?

[Capbyrd]

38 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

I'm not confident we have an answer to this question yet.

 

 

You're welcome.  But that is the law.  And if the law says that it has to have that language, I would assume that you don't need to pay. 

[gregintenn]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

It does not. The only thing it says is that no points will be put on my driving record.

I'm not confident we have an answer to this question yet.

Chris, thanks for sharing that though.

So the ticket itself would be illegal, no?

[MP5_Rizzo]

31 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

So the ticket itself would be illegal, no?

If it does not contain the text , I highlighted in red below, along with being bold face and as large as the largest font anywhere else on the notice/citation then the citation is invalid the way I understand it.

SECTION 1.

Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 55-8-198(b), is amended by adding the following new subdivision:

(6) Every notice of violation or citation issued that is based solely upon evidence obtained from any traffic enforcement camera used to enforce or monitor traffic violations of § 55-8-11 O(a)(3), or any municipal law or ordinance that mirrors, substantially duplicates, or incorporates by cross-reference the language of § 55-8-11 O(a)(3), shall have printed on the notice or citation the following disclaimer in bold-face type and a font that is the same size as the largest font used on the notice or citation: "Non-payment of this ["notice" or "citation"] cannot adversely affect your credit score or report, driver's license, and/or automobile insurance rates."

[Erik88]

2 hours ago, MP5_Rizzo said:

Was it sent to you from a company in Knoxville, TN?

It is from the Knoxville Red Light Photo Enforcement Program and has the Knoxville Police logo. It was apparently reviewed by a person with the last name Huff. Badge #516. It says it's a civil penalty fine of $50.

It also says I will face additional court costs of $68 if I don't pay in time.

 

Edited March 20, 2017 by Erik88

[bersaguy]

Is this all not typical government mumbo jumbo without any factual definition of the law. If the laws are not going to be enforced remove the damn cameras and the problem is fixed. All the politicians are doing to what they always do and that is write laws that keep folks confused and jumping through hoops and never fixing anything...........jmho

[Sam1]

20 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

It is from the Knoxville Red Light Photo Enforcement Program and has the Knoxville Police logo. It was apparently reviewed by a person with the last name Huff. Badge #516. It says it's a civil penalty fine of $50.

It also says I will face additional court costs of $68 if I don't pay in time.

 

The police logos are public domain - anyone can use them as long as they are not impersonating.  Does it say "officer Huff" or "deputy Huff" something saying he is an actual cop?  The point is moot if it does not contain the language as mentioned previously.  It's probably some douche working for the Knoxville red light extortion company, named Huff with an employee number 516.  

They'll do just about anything to scare people into paying; fear is the only tool they really have.  Take that away from them.

Edited March 20, 2017 by Sam1

[MP5_Rizzo]

35 minutes ago, Sam1 said:

They'll do just about anything to scare people into paying; fear is the only tool they really have.

This pretty much sums it up.  Those that argue in favor of citations by automated cameras deny it, but these are nothing more than revenue generators first and public safety second.

[Erik88]

3 hours ago, Sam1 said:

The police logos are public domain - anyone can use them as long as they are not impersonating.  Does it say "officer Huff" or "deputy Huff" something saying he is an actual cop?  The point is moot if it does not contain the language as mentioned previously.  It's probably some douche working for the Knoxville red light extortion company, named Huff with an employee number 516.  

They'll do just about anything to scare people into paying; fear is the only tool they really have.  Take that away from them.

It doesn't identify her as an officer. Just days Knoxville traffic violations bureau

[MP5_Rizzo]

21 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

It doesn't identify her as an officer. Just days Knoxville traffic violations bureau

Was this sent to you by certified mail?

[Erik88]

1 hour ago, MP5_Rizzo said:

Was this sent to you by certified mail?

No I don't believe so. 

[MP5_Rizzo]

11 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

No I don't believe so. 

If it was sent as certified mail then someone had to sign for it.  You can take this how you want but if nobody signed for it then they have no way to prove that you ever recieved it.

[No_0ne]

Tear it up, throw it away.  Do the same with the followup letters, including those from the collection agency they sell the ticket to.  They give up after a while.

[DaveTN]

The people who claim that these tickets can be enforced are apparently alluding to civil suits to get the money; even though they aren’t clearly saying that. Has this happened to a single person in this state?

http://www.local8now.com/content/news/Do-red-light-camera-tickets-have-to-be-paid-385944371.html

http://archive.knoxnews.com/news/politics/legislator-burn-your-red-light-camera-tickets-33c26513-bdd3-126b-e053-0100007faa35-381036031.html

For the stories I have read, I get the impression that these traffic light/speed camera companies have the cities tied up in contracts that pay the companies an obscene percentage of the money collected and may even have minimums. How do you think cities allowed that to happen? 

[gregintenn]

16 hours ago, MP5_Rizzo said:

If it does not contain the text , I highlighted in red below, along with being bold face and as large as the largest font anywhere else on the notice/citation then the citation is invalid the way I understand it.

SECTION 1.

Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 55-8-198(b), is amended by adding the following new subdivision:

(6) Every notice of violation or citation issued that is based solely upon evidence obtained from any traffic enforcement camera used to enforce or monitor traffic violations of § 55-8-11 O(a)(3), or any municipal law or ordinance that mirrors, substantially duplicates, or incorporates by cross-reference the language of § 55-8-11 O(a)(3), shall have printed on the notice or citation the following disclaimer in bold-face type and a font that is the same size as the largest font used on the notice or citation: "Non-payment of this ["notice" or "citation"] cannot adversely affect your credit score or report, driver's license, and/or automobile insurance rates."

It would be interesting to see it contested in court. Erik, you have an extra vacation day?

[Erik88]

Unfortunately I do not. I'm tempted to call the news and see if they will do a follow up story. Specifically, I want KPD to comment on why that required disclaimer about my credit is not on this "ticket".

[btq96r]

That law with the required info on the ticket is nice, but it's missing any clause that invalidates the ticket for not having it. These cameras are pretty much an ATM for local governments, and the contracts with private vendors is a disturbing issue in itself.

That said, while they won't come after you for failure to pay...they won't forgive or forget the money you've been assessed as owing city hall.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk just to give Oh Shoot something to be grumpy about.

[Sam1]

3 hours ago, Erik88 said:

Unfortunately I do not. I'm tempted to call the news and see if they will do a follow up story. Specifically, I want KPD to comment on why that required disclaimer about my credit is not on this "ticket".

Then reach out to KPD or the county clerk directly, do not respond to the company because that would be an acknowledgement that you received the "citation".

Edited March 21, 2017 by Sam1

[DaveTN]

Is there something in place to contest these tickets?

I remember that we had a judge that said radar is merely an aid to what an Officer sees. If an Officer didn’t testify that he visually observed the vehicle and based on his experience it was speeding; the ticket was dismissed.

The radar unit certifications had to be presented (if asked for) and the Officer could be questioned about his training and procedure for calibrating the unit. Is this not done for cameras?

[E4 No More]

14 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

Is there something in place to contest these tickets?

I remember that we had a judge that said radar is merely an aid to what an Officer sees. If an Officer didn’t testify that he visually observed the vehicle and based on his experience it was speeding; the ticket was dismissed.

The radar unit certifications had to be presented (if asked for) and the Officer could be questioned about his training and procedure for calibrating the unit. Is this not done for cameras?

It's case law, but I find that many local judges do not concern their selves with such matters. I was a Missouri State certified RADAR instructor in the 90's. It's also case law that the officer must be using audio on the counter so that you can distinguish between a true and false reading.

[Chucktshoes]

20 hours ago, MP5_Rizzo said:

This pretty much sums it up.  Those that argue in favor of citations by automated cameras deny it, but these are nothing more than revenue generators first and public safety second.

Public safety doesn't even come in second. Every single time these cameras have been studied by outside entities they have been shown to increase the number of accidents at their locations. They are strictly a matter of revenue generation.