Do I understand correctly that the initial administrative hearing is presided over by a representative of the company who operates the cameras?
from what I see, the hearing is setup and run by the company who collects 80% of the ticket revenue. But the actual people who hear the case are city employees.
What a brilliant idea for a business - get the government to collect money for you and you get 80% of it!
Interesting–I hadn’t thought about that. The first study I’m finding when I exclude ones on advocacy websites for or against is a Federal Highway Administration study, which shows that overall there’s a benefit to the cameras. Even though they increase rear-end collisions, they decrease side collisions (as, for example, a car running a red light hits/is hit by oncoming traffic from the road with a green light), and this decrease more than makes up for the increased rear-end collisions. They suggest that the cameras should be installed at intersections with a significant number of side collisions and without a large number of rear-end collisions.
That makes sense to me.
Here is the case that shows they need to pay 90% of the money to local schools:
On motions for summary judgment, the superior court ruled that the Constitution was applicable to the program and that the ordinance failed to dispose of red light camera penalties in accordance with constitutional mandate, and ordered High Point to pay ninety percent of the penalties collected under the program to the Guilford County Board of Education. For the reasons set forth herein, we uphold these rulings of the superior court
Shavitz vs. City of High point, 2006
Different situation.
They usually could not serve you within the legal time-limit so they would send you a letter stating you could agree to give up your legal right to timely service, if not WE WILL SEND A SHERIFF TO YOUR DOOR to serve you and in addition WE WILL CHARGE YOU FOR THE SERVICE.
If you refused to give up your right and they didn’t serve you in time (IIRC 10 days) the ticket was voided.
I haven’t looked, but I doubt the upshot of that case was to void the $50 ticket. The relief was probably just re-directing the money. I doubt you’d even have standing to seek that relief. Gotta get your local school board to sue!
what happened after that legal case was they got rid of cameras since they did not want to give 90% to the schools. So yes, that does not help me but it could get rid of cameras for everyone which I would be fine with.
N.C. Gen.Stat. § 160A-300.1(c)(4) requires a red-light camera municipality to create a nonjudicial administrative hearing to review objections to citations (or to penalties pursuant to those citations). It’s not clear to me whether this is the next step, after some internal private company review, or whether the decision of the private company is then reviewable by the municipal hearing. In either case, the results of that hearing are reviewable in superior court.
…So, did you do it?
Or is your complaint that you got caught?
I would also argue who has standing in the civil suit. If I run a red light, have I damaged RedLightBandit LLC.? If not then who? The Town of Screwyou, AL? Then aren’t they required to file and show up in court?
But ultimately I would argue no one was damaged and therefore no one has standing in a civil suit simply because I violated a law. That’s what criminal cases are for.
I find only one North Carolina appellate case to raise a due process challenge to red light cameras, and in that case the issue was raised via a suit for declaratory judgement as opposed to an appeal of the actual citation. The trial court 12(b)(6)'d it and the appeals court agreed.
So while I think the chances are small, I agree they’re not zero.
But I’d be curious to hear of the specifics of what he, or you, feel constitute due process deprivations here.
Sure. But if the hearing officer at any stage of the appeal were an employee of the red light camera company, I think you’d have a colorable due process claim because of the lack of impartiality of the fact-finder regardless of the availability of appellate review–especially if that review is not de novo. That said, it isn’t clear to me whether the “Hearing Officer” for the appeal is a city employee or not.
The claim under the NC Constitution about “clear proceeds” looks colorable to me, though I just glanced at the Shavitz opinion. I don’t think Bijou could make it though.
[And to be clear, Bijou, none of this is legal advice.]
But that is exactly what happened here in New Jersey. The politicians like the revenue. They like getting reelected more and they know how to read polls.
The important unanswered question.
Before the cameras went away here I got cited for not stopping before I turned right. I watched the video. I slowed down almost to a complete stop then proceeded because it was 100% clear. If I had been directly behind a car who did the same thing I would never pull that person over. It was complete bullshit. But technically I was still moving slightly so it was a violation. I didn’t bother fighting it. I just paid it. I had no defense.
My complaint is that this system must follow all laws and the constitution of NC and the US.
So if I lose the case but the red light system is thrown out I will be happy with that outcome.
Interesting.
So, did you do it?
I’ll assume that means you ran the light.
That will not happen at the initial hearing level. You will have to be willing to take it through several levels of appeals. That means either paying a lot of money for a lawyer or doing it pro se and probably getting your ass kicked. Is that what you are looking to do?
By the way good luck with it. I don’t recommend committing any motor vehicle offenses but I hate those cameras. Just a money grab with no real law enforcement value.
I will look for a lawyer who may want to beat the city / state in court . But since I won’t pay them the odds of finding that person is very,very slim. But it’s worth a shot to look around. I figure most of them will have many more issues they are interested in.
There is a local lawyer with a great track record in court. You may have heard of him. Goes by the name of John Edwards. 
That seems shitty; why didn’t they continue to go after 80% of the amount owed on the people who didn’t pay?
Just a thought popped into my brain. Let us decide that we are bad. We will appeal because we have an alibi. Not really, but we show up with 50 other people and say"I lent my car to Bob." Bob gets up and says “Yes I did borrow her car, and ran the light possibly. I did let John drive a while.” John gets up and says “Yes I do believe I was driving when I ran the light.”
This continues on with several more people. I never went to lawyering school, but how would this play out?
ETA: ref **bump **in post 58 …
For those who had paid, presumably the gov’t refunded the 20% that the gov’t had kept, and let the red light camera company keep the 80% they had “earned” in their contract with the city for each ticket paid.
For those who had not paid, the gov’t waived everything. Which was really the gov’t giving up it’s 20% and telling the red light camera company that it, the gov’t, wasn’t going to act as a collection agency for the red light company any more. In theory the red light camera company might have been able to go after the individual ticketees. With enough legal legerdemain to somehow perfect the “debt”. But good luck with that, much less collecting any.