Doug Nielson's List: phototicket

• I can only think of ONE counter-argument -- but it's pretty good, I think. Someone, please, correct me if I'm wrong. RCW 46.63.075 states (in pertinent part):
   
               

  Quoting RCW 46.63.075

  (2) This presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner states, under oath, in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner.

  
   As you can see from the highlighted portion above, the law provides that the written statement or oral testimony, made under oath, is the ONLY means to overcome the presumption. The word "only" in statutory construction PRECLUDES any and all other alternatives. In this case, it precludes ANY OTHER means of overcoming the presumption. In fact, according to the law, no other proof SHOULD even BE acceptable. Nor any combinations of other proofs.
   
   In fact, to even ASK for other proof is to totally ignore the word "only" in the statute, the use of which makes it clear that the legislature's intention was to limit the ways the presumption could be overcome to just one.
   
   The prosecutor in the case from the other thread was dead wrong, however, he/she got away with it because the defendant was ill-equipped to argue the law.
   
   Barry

• So far, officials have been pleased with the program in which 68 percent of all citations from August to January have been paid.
• After the cameras capture possible red-light violations, Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions, which operates the 12.7-megapixel cameras, sends images, video and owner registration information to Seattle police for a review.
• If officers agree that a violation occurred, the company sends out a citation in the mail. It is treated as a parking violation, and does not appear on a driver's record.
• But failure to pay the ticket results in a person's name being sent to a collection agency, and yearly vehicle registration tabs can be withheld until a fine is paid.
• The cameras and detectors, Shirey said, can determine whether a vehicle is going to stop in time based on its speed and certain measurements at an intersection.

3 more annotations...

• The private firm keeps 30% of the fine and the City gets 70%.
• And the cameras actually cause an increase in accidents.
• “There is little evidence that cameras have decreased the frequency of all auto crashes or of the more dangerous angle collisions.”
• American Traffic Solutions vendor
• The $518,000 cut to American Traffic Solutions; $217,000 to the Seattle Police Department to “review and issue infraction notices;” $111,000 to the Seattle Department of Transportation; $80,000 to the Municipal Court and $30,000 to the “Law Department,” whatever that is. That leaves over $1 millon to go into the City’s coffers to help pay the consultants and the copywriters
• Instead of improving safety, the intersection cameras cause rear-end collisions to soar, as panicked drivers slam on their brakes to avoid running through a yellow or red light.
• yellow light time is reduced from the current standard four seconds to three seconds
• You can look up the stats from cities in states like California that have used the traffic cameras. They had a RISE in accidents due to the cameras because people would slam on their brakes at every yellow light. A lot of rear-endings happened.

6 more annotations...

• “[L]ast week came the latest in a series of studies showing red-light cameras may be having perverse effects on drivers. They do nothing to reduce accidents and may even cause them. . . . The cameras raise money, not public safety.

• Who is right will be decided in a federal court, probably next year. Forty-nine drivers are suing the cities and two private traffic-camera companies, arguing the excessive fines break state law.
• The suit also shows how the cities are using contracts that tie a portion of the private companies' proceeds to how many tickets they issue, which the state also tried to outlaw in that 2005 bill.

• Officer Jim Landers

• postponement of a court date is the only way you "may" be able to get out of it.  Whatever chance you can get, postpone the date.. extensions...etc.  
  If the collection notice says that you have to call the collection agency in order to get a court date - and on the phone the collection agent tells you that you have to pay the collection or you can't have a court date - get the name of the agent, then call the court and complain.  Again: You should not have to pay in order to get a court date.

• This presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner states, under oath, in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody, or control of some person other than the registered owner.