Montgomery County Council President May Have Traffic Citation Problems

Montgomery County Council President Craig Rice appears to be having trouble keeping court dates for traffic citations, according to online court records. 

Records from the Maryland Judicial Case Search show that Craig L. Rice, DOB 9/1972, of Coachmans Cir Germantown failed to appear at a district court trial date over a citation for "failure to obey properly place traffic control device instructions".  The court record shows a "FAILURE TO APPEAR SUSPENSION", though it is uncertain based on this whether a license suspension is actually in effect. 

This was first reported on the "Parents Coalition of Montgomery County" blog.

This is not the first traffic incident to appear in records since Rice was elected to the Montgomery County County council in 2010.  Online court records show three guilty verdicts for speeding violations dated 2/21/2011, 12/20/2011, and 9/10/2012, each annotated as "FAILURE TO COMPLY SUSPENSION".

Council member Rice was selected by the council to serve as president for a one year term starting last week.  Before joining the county council in 2010, Rice was a member of the Maryland House of Delegates where he voted in favor of statewide speed cameras in 2009.  Rice has also served as a representative to the Maryland Association of Counties for Montgomery County.

Rice has also caught flack over illegal parking in the past as well. 

Montgomery County Circuit Court: Innocence is a Defense

A Montgomery County Circuit Court judge ruled last week that “not being the driver” is a valid defense against a speed camera citation.  Basing his decision on careful analysis of Maryland law, the judge determined that a person named on a citation has no duty to identify the actual driver to exercise this defense. 

The case involved a citation issued to a leading member of the Maryland Drivers Alliance, Ron Ely.  Ely had received a speed camera citation from Montgomery county for a Toyota Prius, for which he was one of two registered owners.  Mr. Ely was not the driver – or even a passenger -- at the time of the alleged violation.

The citation was first disputed in district court.  The district court judge stated the only defense she would accept was for the guilty person to be presented in court and admit to the offense.  In addition, while Mr Ely had requested the presence and testimony of the "operator" of the device, using the means specified on the citation, the judge refused to permit the operator to be called to testify or to be cross examined even though she was present in the courtroom.  The district court found against the defendant.... along with every other speed camera defendant who appeared in district court that day with the exception of some Gaithersburg and Montgomery County police officers.  The citation was then appealed to circuit court.

Upon closer examination of the statute and consultation with attorneys, the following wording was noted in the statute (emphasis added):
===============================================

(f)    (1)   The District Court may consider IN DEFENSE OF A VIOLATION:[...] 
(ii)   Subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection, EVIDENCE THAT THE PERSON NAMED IN THE CITATION WAS NOT OPERATING THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME OF THE VIOLATION; and 
(iii)   Any other issues and evidence that the District Court deems pertinent.[...]  

(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.

(4)     (i)   IF the District Court finds that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation OR receives evidence under paragraph (3) of this subsection identifying the person driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, the clerk of the court shall provide to the agency issuing the citation a copy of any evidence substantiating who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.(ii)   On receipt of substantiating evidence from the District Court under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, an agency may issue a citation as provided in subsection (d) of this section to the person who the evidence indicates was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.

===============================================
The defendant noted that the statute specifically uses the word "defense" not "transfer of liability".  Furthermore, paragraph 3 does not include any requirement to identify the driver, only to provide "corroborating evidence" that the person named in the citation was not driving.  The statute furthermore does note that the court may consider "Any other issues and evidence that the District Court deems pertinent" which makes clear that the defenses shown are not intended as an exhaustive list, but rather are meant to ensure that the specifically listed defenses are not forbidden by the court.

Further bolstering the argument, the defendant noted that PRIOR TO 2009, article 21-809(f) paragraph 3 was worded differently, as follows :
===============================================
(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) Provides the name, address, and, if possible, the driver's license identification number of the person who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation; and
(iii) Includes any other corroborating evidence.
===============================================
However subparagraph 2 had been struck from the law in 2009 by the state legislature.  This demonstrated that the omission of the requirement to identify the driver is NOT merely an oversight or a technicality, but that it was intentionally removed by design in order to permit an affirmative defense in the case of actual innocence.

The defendant had sent a letter as specified in item 3 to the circuit court prior to the hearing, presenting a copy into evidence at the hearing.  For each prosecution witness which appeared, the defendant asked them whether they could identify the driver from the citation photos, and each of them could not.  When the defendant began to offer "corroborating evidence" that he was not the driver into evidence, the county attorney stipulated that Mr. Ely was not the driver.

The defendant argued to the circuit court that the case, which appears online, showed his name and his name alone in the record, as did the citation.  He also noted the language used in the "Baker vs Montgomery County" decision referred to paying a citation as "an admission of speeding", not merely an admission of "liability".   As stated by Maryland's highest court:
"Moreover, whether vehicle owners were speeding and whether local governments violated § 21-809(j) are distinct questions that finding a violation of § 21-809(j) would not nullify the owners’ admission that they were speeding, i.e., payment of the penalties." (pg1)
and
"Thus, Petitioners’ § 21-809(j) defense, if successful, would not nullify Respondents’ prior admission of speeding, represented by paying the penalty before trial in the District Court."
As such, the defendant argued, the court is determining individual guilt or innocence for "speeding", not merely "liability".

The defendant furthermore noted that identifying the driver may simply be impossible in many cases.  If the owner of the vehicle was not present, any statements as to who was driving would be "hearsay" which is normally inadmissible as evidence in court.

The defendant in this case tried to further bolster his argument by filing a subpoena to Montgomery County for documents pertaining to any citations issued to himself in the past.  Montgomery County had no record of any prior citations issued to Mr Ely.  In fact this citation was the first speed camera citation which Mr Ely had ever received.

The judge found in favor of the defendant.  When the prosecution tried to argue that paragraph 4 of the statute was meant to transfer liability, the judge noted that the wording uses an "OR" and that if no evidence is presented that portion of the statute does not apply, and that this did not constitute a requirement on the defendant to provide such evidence.  The judge furthermore stated that for the defendant to  mail the affidavit stating that he was not the driver to the circuit court was appropriate in this case on an appeal, and that since such appeals are "de novo" hearings whatever occurred at the district court hearing was irrelevant.

The wording on the back of a Montgomery county citation reads as follows:

TRANSFER OF LIABILITY  If you, as the registered owner, were not operating the vehicle at the time of this infraction and you choose to identity the person who was, you shall provide to the District Court a sworn to and affirmed statement and mail by certified mail.  Your statement must indicate you swear or affirm that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle and include any corroborating evidence. 

This appears to be based on the pre-2009 wording of the law, and doesn't give any clue to a ticket recipient that they might have an option of disputing the citation without identifying the driver.  An individual who cannot, or does not wish to "transfer liability" would logically ignore this section on the citation.  In 2009 the district court created a template citation which uses completely different language:

Differing language between Montgomery County Citations and the District Court's Template

"Q: What if I was not driving the vehicle?A: You must provide a sworn statement in which you swear or affirm that you were not operating the vehicle and include any corroborating evidence.  The statement must include the citation number and be mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested " .... 

with no requirement included to identify the driver even mentioned in the template.  Thus it would seem that the template citation created by the district court was based on the current wording of the law, whereas the Montgomery County citations are based on the old language.

A defense of this sort might be described as an "affirmative defense", in that a burden of proof is placed on the defendant, but if successfully exercised it nullifies the violation.  The agency would still re-issue the citation if the actual driver is identified.   The defense cannot be exercised in the case where one was the driver, as this would constitute perjury which carries potential penalties far greater than a speeding citation.

Mr Ely spent several times the value of the citation and dozens of hours of time preparing for the case.  It is unclear at this time how much Montgomery County taxpayer money the county, who brought at least four prosecution witnesses and numerous pieces of evidence not normally presented at district court hearings, to try to prosecute the defendant for a $40 violation which he did not commit.

Anyone who wishes to use such a defense would need to send a letter to the district court with some evidence that they were not the driver (for example, some documentation establishing an alibi or that the person named in the citation was nowhere near the location of the alleged violations at the time).  In the letter they should note the exact wording of the statues, note that does not require identifying the driver, and note the fact that providing evidence against someone without first person knowledge because you were not present would constitute "hearsay" which is inadmissible under Maryland Rules of evidence.  They should also reference the 2009 change to the law, which can be found here on page 6, to support the argument that the requirement to identify the driver has been deliberately struck from state law.

After the judge rendered their verdict in this case, the County Attorney protested that this ruling was unprecedented and would "turn the entire speed camera program on it's head".  However this is incorrect on both counts.  Other motorists have been found not guilty in district court based on the fact that they were not the driver.  And the idea that the program needs to rely on the ability to find genuinely innocent people guilty, and that for the court to find a few of them not guilty would bring the system crashing down, seems both silly and a bit perverse.  To quote a line from the movie 'Catching Fire': "It must be a fragile system if it can be brought down by a few berries."

=====================================================
The content of this website does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel

Public and Critics Banned from MaCo Speed Camera Meeting

The public, including  a member of the Maryland Drivers Alliance, was banned from attending a speed camera symposium in Bowie Maryland today.

The event, which we had discussed in a previous posting, was sponsored by The Maryland Association of Counties(MaCo) and the Maryland Municipal League (MML), both of which are funded in large part by taxpayer dollars.  The heads of the speed camera programs for Montgomery and Prince George's County, Captain Tom Didone and Major Liberati, were leading the event.  AAA also co-sponsored the event.

The agenda was supposed to include "best practices" for speed camera programs, but would also include "Current law and Proposed Changes in 2014".  In the wake of the revelations of systematic errors in Baltimore City's speed camera program which brought calls for reform or repeal of the state's speed camera law,  MaCo and the MML united with Montgomery County and Prince Georges to oppose meaningful speed camera reform during the last legislative session in Annapolis.  Instead they supported a "paper tiger" bill designed to dupe the public into believing problems had been solved but which really only answered the question "How do we do a better job of public relations?".

Didone, Liberati, MaCo, & the MML united against motorists in a legislative committee, at taxpayer expense

The Maryland Drivers Alliance had been specifically invited to attend the symposium by John Townsend of AAA.  However when a Maryland Drivers Alliance member, Gene Simmers, attempted to sign up for the symposium Captain Tom Didone informed him that he would not be permitted to enter.
"Capt. Didone called me back and informed me that I was denied permission to attend tomorrow's meeting in Bowie." wrote Simmers "He mentioned that he especially didn't want anyone from our group to attend since Ron is so anti-speed camera. I asked him who would be attending and he said county employees. I then asked him if he was aware of the Maryland Openings Act and he said no."

We complained to Townsend of AAA, as we had been previously advised that we could attend.  "Gene, at Ron’s request," [referring to the MDA chairman] "and on your behalf, we had asked for you and members of the alliance  to be able to attend." wrote Townsend.

"I have [asked] the major sponsors to reconsider their position.   I think they should" wrote Townsend.  He then advised Mr Simmers to "Make your appeal in person."

The next day Mr Simmers appeared at the Symposium in Bowie as AAA had suggested... and was barred from entering by police and by Captain Tom Didone.

"I showed up at 9:10 am and introduced myself at the check in desk. As I was speaking, a Mont. County police officer pushed his way through the crowd and proclaimed " I will handle this". A few minutes went by and Captian Didione showed up. He began to repeat that he had told me no yesterday . I showed him the e-mail from Townsend and that was the only reason I drove from Harford County to attend. He then started to become a little rough and said he had told me 3 times the reasons why I could not not attend. I told him I didn't like any of his 3 answers.  He repeated that the reason that I could not attend was because of pending legal action between our group and a community at the symposium. I told him that" anyone who has watched a repeat of any Law and Order show would know that pending legal would never be discussed by police officers at a public meeting. Townsend showed up and literally froze when I asked for his opinion. Regina Averella of AAA was standing next to me and said" I don't get in the middle with this". Capt Didone also said my presence in the room would be intimidating to some in attendance. I told him that I didn't know anyone in the room and no one would know who I was, he just looked down and left for impromptu meetings. At least 5 members of AAA and 3 police officers were gathered around me.
 
When the symposium started  the police officer who pushed his way to the table remained outside in the hallway at the table. He stayed at the table the ENTIRE time from 9:15 until 12:00 when lunch started . He was joined by another officer  as well. This guy never attended one minute of the symposium . I sincerely doubt if his task was to guard a registration desk that collected no money all day. I had a babysitter I believe."

Media presence at the symposium was also severely restricted.  One reporter from a local radio station was permitted to attend a portion of the symposium, because he had been invited to provide a presentation to speed camera programs about "How to Conduct an Effective Media Campaign".  However even that reporter was forced to leave at 1:00 as soon as his presentation was over.

MaCo and the various speed camera programs of the state had an opportunity to demonstrate that they were transparent and that they were open to hearing input and criticism from the driving public.  Instead what they decided to prove was that they prefer to skulk around in dark corners and concoct secret legislative schemes in private meetings, all funded by taxpayer dollars.  They have proven that speed camera programs are basically just like vampires.... unable to survive in the light of day.

*** SHAME!!!! ***

Additional Coverage:
WBFF: Multi County Symposium on Speed Cameras 

Camera Firms Continue Lobbying

The state legislature may not be in session for the moment, but speed camera firms continue spending on lobbying activities even in the off season.

Speed Camera company Xerox Corporation has spent the largest amount, reporting a total of $176,000 on lobbying in the one year period ending November 2013 according to documents on the State Ethics Commission website.

Xerox paid the firm Alexander & Cleaver fees totaling $58,000 in the six month period since May, even though the legislature was out of session.  This brought the total amount which Xerox paid the lobbying firm to $114,000 for the one year period.

In addition to doing lobbying on speed camera issues, Alexander & Cleaver also represents local governments on a variety of issues, and specifically list "Traffic photo enforcement" as one of their specialty areas on the firm's website.  Editor's note and disclosure: Alexander & Cleaver is the law firm of the Town of Morningside's attorney; We are currently in a dispute over that town's failure to provide calibration records in response to a Maryland's Public Information Act request. 

Xerox also paid the lobbying firm Harris Jones & Malone a fee of $60,000 over the past year.

According to Ethics commission reports Sigma Space (the parent company of Optotraffic) paid $35,983 to the law firm Rifkin, Weiner, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC during the last year.  Photo enforcement company American Traffic Solutions paid $43,000 over the last year to a lobbying company, and camera company Redflex has also hired a lobbying firm as well.

These private company activities are in addition to lobbying performed by local government employees and their proxies such as the Maryland Association of Counties and the Maryland Municipal League, who have argued for expanded photo enforcement and against new protections for motorist rights at taxpayer expense.  Montgomery County alone paid MaCo $250,000 to lobby on their behalf on issues last year, and spends $895,000 per year of taxpayer money on the "Office of Intergovernment Relations" which lobbies at taxpayer expense on this and other issues, as well as paying members of their speed camera program to testify on legislative matters at public expense.  Precisely what percentage of this money goes towards lobbying on speed camera issues is unclear.  However it was reported to us that in response to a public information request placed by one Montgomery County taxpayer to the Montgomery County Department of Intergovernment Relations for correspondence pertaining to last year's speed camera legislation, the office responded by stating that they had "banker boxes" full of such documents and that it would cost the requester $750 to see them.  When the requester tried to narrow their request, the county responded by RAISING the fee to over $1215 instead of lowering the fee.

Salisbury Records Show Calibration Lapses

The Maryland Drivers Alliance had been trying for months to obtain copies of annual calibration certificates and daily setup logs from Salisbury, after the city claimed that all records were in the hands of their contractor.  Now, the Washington Times reports that they have obtained some of the same records we had been seeking, and sure enough the documents do have some problems.

The Times asked the city, as part of a formal media request under the Maryland Public Information Act, for the following information on October 28th:

1. The annual calibration certificates issued by the independent calibration laboratory for the all speed monitoring systems (i.e. speed cameras) deployed in Salisbury, as specified in transportation article §21-809(b)(4), which were in effect for any portion of 2011-2013.  If a device has been replaced or re-certified, we are seeking all versions of the certificates since the inception of Salisbury's speed camera program.

2. The signed daily set-up logs or 'daily self test logs,' as required by §21-809, for the speed monitoring systems deployed at the following locations and dates:
    a) 700 East Main Street, May 21, 2013
    b) 300 Block East College Ave, May 22, 2013
    c) 700 East Main Street, May 22, 2013
    d) 300 Block East College West Bound, June 3, 2013
    e) 300 Block East College West Bound, June 4, 2013
    f) 700 East Main Street Northbound, June 4, 2013
    g) 600 Blk Bus Rt. 50 West Bound, July 11, 2013
    h) 600 Blk Bus Rt. 50 East Bound, July 26, 2013
    i) 700 East Main Street, January 7-January 11 2013 (5 days)
    j) 700 East Main Street, February 4-February 8 2013 (5 days)

Salisbury provided documents to the Times, which you can see here in their entirely.

Annual calibrations were provided for ten devices.  State law specifies:

   (4) (i) A speed monitoring system shall undergo an annual calibration check performed by an independent calibration laboratory.
      (ii) The independent calibration laboratory shall issue a signed certificate of calibration after the annual calibration check that:
         1. Shall be kept on file; and

         2. Shall be admitted as evidence in any court proceeding for a violation of this section.

The annual calibration certificates for the first year for each of the devices was issued by the manufacturer of the device, Sensys.  The basis for allowing a manufacturer certification to be "independent" is a dubious interpretation of the law.  In addition many of the 'annual' calibrations were in fact issued for 13 months, which would not seem to be 'annual', and a court in Washington County has ruled as such.  

Of the first year certificates, five of them appear to have had more than 12 months between the initial test date and the retest date.  For example: 

• A camera with serial number F3F8B512000 was certified on 1/19/2012 but not re-tested until 3/30/2012... 41 days after the expiration of the 13 (not 12) month period.  
• One with serial number B0FAB5120000 was initially tested by the manufacturer on 12/27/2011 but not retested until 1/27/2013.  
• Serial number ACEBB5120000 was initially tested on 12/21/2011 but not retested until 1/27/2013. 
• Serial Number CEFEB5120000 was initially tested by Sensys on 4/6/2011 but not retested until 7/18/2012. Serial number 6DDAB512000 was certified on 4/6/2011, 7/18/2012 (15 months after), and then again on 10/16/2013 (15 months after).

In addition, while the Times requested a total of 18 daily setup logs (also a requirement of the law), only FOUR total documents were provided.  Of the days produced, ALL of them has some issue:

• A log for 6/3/2013  was provided, but which had no operator signature on it
• A log for 7/11/2013 had been requested, but instead a log dated 7/11/2012 was provided
• A log for 7/28/2013 was provided, for the opposite direction requested by the Times

No logs at all were provided to the Times for any dates requested before June.

We have confirmed that citations were issued on 700 East Main Street on May 21 and 300 East College Avenue on May 22, and at 600 Block of Bus Rt. 50 West Bound, July 11, 2013 based on citations provided to us by local residents.

The requirement for daily logs is also in transportation article 21-809:
   (3) A speed monitoring system operator shall fill out and sign a daily set-up log for a speed monitoring system that:
      (i) States that the speed monitoring system operator successfully performed the manufacturer-specified self-test of the speed monitoring system prior to producing a recorded image;
      (ii) Shall be kept on file; and
      (iii) Shall be admitted as evidence in any court proceeding for a violation of this section.

As such it would seem that all of the unsigned logs are legally invalid, and not having any log at all "on file" for certain days would not be valid either.

Item #1 from the Washington Times request, for annual calibration certificates, was also part of our own request we had placed in June of 2013.  Our own request had also included daily setup logs, however the dates we had requested were different.  Salisbury responded to our own Maryland Public Information Act request by stating that all records were kept by the contractor, who stated to the city that obtaining such records would costs a total $535 in search fees, including $235 for making copies.  The disclosure to the Washington Times, which asked for a similar number of pages, was 50 pages and provided as a PDF (ie no physical copies).  According to sources Brekford maintains records of this sort in an electronic, searchable database which allows records to be retrieved as a PDF with a few clicks of a mouse.

We had requested to Salisbury's Mayor that they perform an 'administrative review', as defined under the MPIA.  Mayor Ireton referred questions about this issue to the town attorney, who has not responded to any emails pertaining to our request for administrative review.  However after the Times obtained these documents, some annual calibration certificates were provided to another individual who had been seeking them... three months after he had placed his request.

Had the documents been made available to the Maryland Drivers Alliance in a timely manner, the public might have been notified of these possible issues and people who received tickets could have chosen to contest them on that basis.  In general Maryland courts have upheld that once a citation is paid their is no legal recourse for a driver, so potentially the delay in making documents has denied some motorists the ability to use this information to make a determination to dispute tickets in time for them to do so.

Hagerstown and Greenbelt both issued citation refunds earlier this year after it was found that citations had been issued while annual calibration certificates had gone more than a year without retesting.

Summary of released documents and issues
Salisbury Calibration Documents
Washington Times Editorial: Revenue camera shakedown

WTOP News: Speed camera accuracy questioned in Morningside, Maryland

MORNINGSIDE, Md. - A WTOP Ticketbuster investigation has uncovered serious questions about the accuracy of a speed camera on Suitland Road in Morningside, Md

For the entire story, see:

http://www.wtop.com/1319/3512254/Speed-camera-glitch-captured-on-videos

From the story:

Todd Pounds, Morningside's town attorney, declined to be interviewed for this story, although he did speak to WTOP on the phone and email. He tells WTOP that the cameras are accurate and comply with Maryland law, but wouldn't comment on the videos themselves. WTOP asked Pounds to produce annual calibration and daily self- test records for the Suitland Road camera to substantiate his claims, but he refused to do so.

 

 

MaCo Hosts Speed Camera Love Fest

The Maryland Association of Counties (MaCo) will be holding a speed camera symposium on December 4th, from 9:30 AM to 3:30 PM at the Kenhill Center (Old Bowie City Hall: 2614 Kenhill Drive, Bowie, Maryland, 20715).

The agenda for this meeting will include Requirements for a Speed Camera Program, Partnerships, Vendor Contracts, Policies and Procedures, program results, Current Law, and Proposed Changes in 2014.

The Maryland Association of Counties performs lobbying on behalf of county governments, who fund the organization with your tax dollars.  MaCo was the "bunt instrument" used by local governments including Montgomery County, Prince George's County, for killing off proposed "common sense" changes to require speed camera citations to provide sufficient evidence to detect speed errors after the fact (a change which the Maryland Drivers Alliance supported).

The organization also fought to keep in place the current "loophole" which permits speed camera contractors to be paid based on the number of tickets issued.  Despite an existing provision of the law which even Governor O'Malley admitted was intended to ban paying contractors based on the number of tickets, this practice is now common across the state.  Local governments all know by now that the law simply means whatever the government wants it to at any given time, and that the courts in Maryland will indulge any "loophole" or creative interpretation of the law which is convenient for local governments.

MaCo stood in opposition to the positions of the Maryland Drivers Alliance in both house and senate legislative committee hearings.

MaCo nominally represents all twenty four counties plus Baltimore City.  However the Maryland Drivers Alliance has obtained correspondence written by MaCo during the last session opposing speed camera reform legislation, showed that the organization's correspondence on this matter was copied to Prince George's County, Montgomery County, Baltimore County, Howard County, and Baltimore City, a representative of the Maryland Municipal League, and that's all.  Representatives of Counties which do NOT have large speed camera programs were notably NOT copied in the correspondence.  One might imagine that had any elected officials or counties which do NOT currently profit from speed camera programs (perhaps because the cameras are very unpopular there) been "in the loop" on such discussions, they might have disputed MaCo's interpretation of the facts or the law.  They might also have taken issue with MaCo speaking on behalf of ALL counties in opposition to changes designed to protect the legal rights of motorists, based on consultation only with local governments which profit from speed cameras.

Sample MaCo Correspondence, 'looping in' only those counties which profit from cameras

Sample MaCo Testimony Opposing Speed Camera Reform Legislation

According to the invite, "MaCo urges counties with speed camera programs to attend this educational event."

Anyone who wishes to attend to register can find the instructions for doing so here.

Our readers can Find their county's representative to MaCo's Legislative Committee on this page.  Those who wish express their opinion to MaCo regarding their positions opposing speed camera reform legislation.  We would particularly encourage anyone to write who has objections to:

• MaCo's opposition to legislative changes requiring accurate timestamp evidence which could prove speed measurement errors, and their support for allowing local governments to withhold accurate timestamp evidence which could potentially exonerate innocent motorists as it did last year in Baltimore City.
• MaCo's opposition changes to ban paying contractors based on the number of tickets
• MaCo's support of "cosmetic" legislative changes which are intended only for "public relations", and which would merely be a "smokescreen" designed to fool the public into believing that things are now "fixed" without actually changing the way speed camera programs actually operated
• MaCo's exclusion of counties which do not profit from speed cameras from discussions about legislative activities
• The use of taxpay dollars in general to support legislative positions which in any way limit the legal rights of drivers

Speed Camera Company Misses SEC Filing Deadine

Speed Camera Contractor Brekford Corp announced on November 14th that they would not meet the deadline for filing their Q-10 quarterly results report with the SEC.

The notification of late filing form (FORM 12b-25) stated:

The Registrant anticipates that its consolidated statements of operations for the three- and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2013 to be included in the Quarter Report will reflect: (i) a net loss of approximately $568,492 for the three months ended September 30, 2013, compared to a net loss of approximately $50,948 for the corresponding period of 2012; (ii) a net loss of approximately $968,960 for the nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared to net income of approximately $198,895 for the corresponding period of 2012; and (iii) basic and diluted net loss per common share of $0.01 and $0.02 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, compared to basic and diluted earnings per common share of $0.00 and $0.00 for the corresponding periods of 2012.  The reduction in net income for the 2013 periods when compared to the 2012 periods resulted primarily from increased expenses related to salaries, benefit programs and associated support costs for the expansion of ATSE without corresponding increases in revenue as certain program implementations were delayed.  Increased depreciation expense associated with newly installed technology infrastructure and camera equipment also contributed to the loss.

In late 2012, Brekford was riding high on having won the contract in Baltimore City, only to have the program shut down shortly after Brekford took over in 2013 after hundreds of tickets had been found to have been issued by improperly programmed cameras.  Brekford also found itself unable to meet contract obligations when the prior contractor, Xerox Corp, failed to turn over software required to run speed cameras already deployed in that city.  

Brekford stated in August that they anticipated the city's program would restart the third quarter.  However, according to an article in the Baltimore Sun, "Tests by the city have shown that 11 months after Brekford took over, the system is still troubled by inaccurate speed readings, incorrect addresses and tickets listing wrong information on how to pay a citation, city officials have said. Now officials are working to end the five-year contract, the sources said."

In addition, Brekford was forced to refund hundreds of tickets issued in Hagerstown and Greenbelt after it was discovered that the devices had been operated with expired annual calibration certificates in early 2013.  Two other Brekford Clients, Salisbury and Morningside, have failed to provide their prior annual calibration certificates in response to Maryland Public Information Act requests.

The manner by which local government have tried to privatize law enforcement by outsourcing the functions of their speed camera programs to private companies has raised issues in the past. Now a new question is raised: what happens when a speed camera company begins to fail?  Would municipal governments provide a speed camera company with some form of "government bailout?"  Would a local government assist a hemorrhaging speed camera company in keeping secrets, by agreeing to allow Public Records to be withheld if those documents might reveal some problem which might force that company to face embarrassment or incur the expense of refunding more citations?  And might a desperate for-profit company, whose fee depends on the number of tickets issued, reconcile its need to keep stockholders happy by increasing revenues with the demands of maintaining quality control to avoid ticketing innocent people?

Baltimore City Issued 1.5Million Camera Tickets As Accident Rates Rose

A report by the Baltimore Sun showed that Baltimore City experienced an almost 5% increase in traffic accidents from 2009 to 2012. In that four year time period Baltimore City put approximately 50 speed cameras online and issued 1.5 million speed camera tickets.

Baltimore's first speed cameras went online in November of 2009. However most of the city's cameras did not go online until months, and 2010 was the first full year with speed cameras.

The city defended the program's results by asserting that traffic accidents dropped at six intersections where cameras were used.  That data came from only a small fraction of the city's cameras, and was compiled in late 2012 when the city's program was coming under increasing fire over erroneous citations and many other complaints.  No data from 2012 was provided.  It is unclear why "intersections" were the basis of the city's collision analysis when the cameras involved were speed cameras rather than red light cameras and thus are not necessarily enforcing just in "intersections".

Baltimore's program was shut down in early 2013 after hundreds of erroneous citations were sent out to innocent drivers.

Montgomery County Council Examines Converting Car Lanes To Bus Routes

The Montgomery County council has been working on a proposal to "repurpose" lanes away from cars to support a new $3billion 'rapid transit' bus system.  Supporters of the plan say it will reduce traffic congestion by taking cars off the road.  "Bus rapid transit is rooted in the notion that if you take away a lane for cars on a congested road and set it aside for attractive, light-rail-like buses, some motorists will abandon their cars." wrote the Post.  So far funding for the proposal has not been identified.

Do you support proposals to "repurpose" car lanes for bus only traffic?

Is Parking on a Bike Path Legal?

While it is doubtful that parking on a bike path would be allowed for the peasant folk, Montgomery County's speed camera maintenance vans are apparently "special".

This photo was taken of a camera located on Travillah road just before 9am on 11/11//2013. ( The photographer was parked and was not obstructing any traffic at the time). Since this vehicle does not have "local government" plates, it would not appear to be an actual government registered "law enforcement vehicle".

After this photo was taken, this camera which only photographs speeding cars proceeded to "flash" the photographer as soon as he pulled back onto the road, while he was still traveling at least 5mph below the posted speed limit.

The Maryland Drivers Alliance would love to see any photos our readers might acquire of speed camera vans "being special".  Just use Our Contact Form to reach us.

WUSA9 Investigations: Speedcam loophole & unpublished Montgomery Co. camera sites

WASHINGTON (WUSA9) -- A WUSA9 investigation casts new doubt on Montgomery County's speed camera program, a system that racks up millions in revenue, because there is no evidence some sites were ever published.

Entire article and video at:

http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/281439/158/WUSA9-Probe-Montgomery-Co-speed-cams-legal

Court Rejects Optotraffic Lawsuit in Ohio

Maryland based speed camera company Optotraffic continues running into difficulties expanding their business into other states, as an article in TheNewspaper.com reports that a court in Ohio has rejected a complaint filed by the company against a local government.

Optotraffic's complaint stemmed from a prior court ruling where a Hamilton County Common Please judge ruled that the speed camera program in the town of Elmwood Place Ohio was illegal.  After  Maryland based Optotraffic failed to actually turn the cameras off in response to the court order, Judge Robert P. Ruehlman, he ordered the sheriff to confiscate the equipment.  Optotraffic filed the complaint in an attempt to reverse the decision and have the equipment returned.

In Maryland it has typically been motorists who have been denied legal recourse.  The Maryland high court has ruled that class action suits cannot be filed against a speed camera program because Maryland law does not permit the government to be sued and because paying speed camera tickets constitutes "the owners' admission that they were speeding" (even though the citations do not use those words and the owner may not even have been driving).  In Ohio however, the tables have been turned on the Maryland based speed camera company.  Optotraffic was forced to withdraw the complaint after the appellate court refused to intervene.  "Judge Ruehlman was the party that made the decision to have the sheriff confiscate the cameras," wrote Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney Joseph Deters wrote. "However that does not help Optotraffic because they did not join Judge Ruehlman or the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court as a defendant, and the common pleas court is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity."

Read TheNewspaper.Com article

MDA Exclusive: Brekford representative to travel to Salisbury tomorrow to hand over documents

A source at Salisbury's speed camera vendor, Brekford Corporation, has informed the MDA that a Brekford representative will be meeting with Col. Barclay on Friday, November 8, to deliver "a very large packet" of speed camera calibration certificates.   Col. Barclay manages Salisbury's speed camera program. 

State law requires that the calibration certificates be maintained in the files of each jurisdiction that operates speed cameras.  

The MDA requested calibration certificates from Salisbury five months ago, but the city did not fulfill the request.  Another request was submitted two months ago.  The city has continued to disregard the requests for calibration certificates even after numerous calls and emails to Mayor James Ireton, Council President Jacob Day, the city clerk, City Attorney Mark Tilghman and other city officials.

The Brekford representative also stated that Salisbury will be posting the calibration certificates on the city's website on November 8.

Baltimore City Still Uncertain of Camera Restart Date Due to Accuracy Concerns

The Baltimore Sun reports that Baltimore City is still unable to give a restart date for its speed and red light camera programs, which were shut down six months ago over reports of systematic erroneous citations.

"If we don't have people that can do the job correctly, then we have to find someone who can," said City Councilman Brandon Scott. "This is something that needs to be handled posthaste. It's bad business for us to let the issue hang out there this long." 

Tests have shown that the system sometimes produces inaccurate speed readings, makes address errors and provides incorrect information on how to pay a citation, city officials said. 

"We want to make sure when they go back online, they go back online with accuracy, efficiency and consistency," Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said Wednesday. "The current vendor is not there yet."

 Baltimore City's program was previously run by speed camera contractor Xerox Corporation, the same company which runs the speed camera programs for the SHA, Montgomery County, and Baltimore County.  However at the end of 2012, Xerox was forced to admit that several of its cameras were systematically ticketing innocent motorists, revealing that 1 in 20 tickets at some locations were issued due to erroneous speed readings caused by what Xerox officials referred to as "radar effects".  This admission of the fallibility of speed cameras was the result of an extensive investigation by the Baltimore Sun, which included discovery that a stationary car had received a speeding citation, as well as evidence uncovered by the our organization which included analysis of video and photographic evidence, and the discovery of documents which revealed that the city and Xerox were aware of prior instances of errors and had received prior complaints from businesses about erroneous tickets on more than one occasion.  Baltimore City shut down several speed cameras as a result.

Xerox lost the contract to Brekford corporation at the end of 2012.  However Brekford was forced to shut the program down shortly thereafter when it was revealed that hundreds of additional erroneous citations were issued early in 2013 shortly after Brekford took over the program.

The incidents sparked calls to modify the state's speed camera law to require stricter evidence standards including requiring citations to contain enough information to verify speed in the same manner which the Baltimore Sun did.  However the state legislature rejected the changes at the insistence of local governments which run speed cameras who feared the information would be 'misused' and that 'the courts would be swamped' if falsely accused motorists had access to enough evidence to mount fair defense.

Baltimore City had originally budgeted to bring in over $15 million in revenue from its speed and red light camera program, however Mayor Rawlings Blake told the Sun "We look for ways to become more efficient and absorb that loss" and that "there are no programs that are going to be cut."

A report on Fox Baltimore stated that when it was noted to Mayor Rawlings Blake that the program had been shut down for six months, the mayor responded "Your welcome."

Baltimore City's current contractor, Brekford Corp, also runs the speed camera programs in Hagerstown, Laurel, Greenbelt, Morningside, and Salisbury.  Brekford was forced to issue thousands of speed camera ticket refunds when it was discovered that cameras in Greenbelt and Hagerstown were operating with expired calibrations.  This year the cities of Salisbury and Morningside both denied public information act requests for calibration records made by the Maryland Drivers Alliance, and we are still to this day attempting to obtain those records.

Additional Coverage
WBAL: Conflicting Reports on Status of City Speed Camera Program

Baltimore County Calibrations Lapsed

The Baltimore Sun reports that twelve Baltimore County Speed cameras  were secretly shut down in February-March of this year, and more than 1467 citations voided, after the annual calibrations for the devices were allowed to lapse by speed camera contractor Xerox Corp.

Xerox corporation reported to the Baltimore county government in February that it had failed to re-certify the twelve devices prior to the expiration of their calibration certificates, which are required by law every year.  The county quietly took the devices offline so they could be re calibrated, and no announcement was made of this certification lapse at the time it took place.  The devices were put back online in March.

At the time this reported lapse took place, the state legislature had been considering changes to the state's speed camera law which would have set much more stringent standards for cameras, including requiring a means to verify vehicle speed after the fact from citation images.  The legislature rejected the proposed changes, partially on the word of an organization which lobbies on behalf of the counties which profit from speed cameras (The Maryland Association of Counties or MACO) that stricter standards were not needed because speed cameras are calibrated annually.

Had news of a calibration laps become public at that time, it would likely have worked against MaCo and Xerox's arguments to the legislature that stricter standards were not required.

By pure coincidence, a public records request had been placed on behalf of our organization for Baltimore County's documents on January 28, 2013.  In February, we received a letter confirming that our request would be granted.  However no calibration records were actually provided to us with that letter, and we did not actually receive any certificates until June.... well after the end of the legislative session.

The county also denied a portion of that same records request for the "FCC ID" (an identifier issued by the Federal Communications Commission for radio emitting electronic devices to ensure they operate only at particular frequencies and avoid interference with other devices), claiming that private contractor Xerox was the custodian of this information.  Three local government which used this particular model of camera (G1-ATR) had been asked for its FCC ID, and none were able to provide the information.

Gansler Comes Clean on Speed Camera Ticket

Attorney General Doug Gansler has admitted that a state vehicle issued to him had received a speed camera citation from the District of Columbia.  The Washington Post recently reported on inappropriate demands which state police alleged that Gansler had made to drivers assigned to transport him.  Gansler denied a report that he had received and refused to pay a speeding ticket he got in the mail stating “There’s a public record to show I never got a speeding ticket, so we know that’s not true.”

The Washington Post now reports that Gansler has acknowledged that the Attorney General's Office was issued a ticket by the District of Columbia for a vehicle assigned to him.  Maryland state troopers had previously reported that the citation was issued "while the Attorney General was operating the vehicle in DC".  The citation, issued in June of 2012, was issued for traveling 21-25mph over the speed limit in a 30mph zone at the 2300 block of Porter Street NW.  The fine for the citation had been doubled because it was overdue.  Gansler says he has now paid the citation which he had "inadvertently not paid", without determining who was driving, according to the Post.

After Three Years, Brentwood Records Request Still Unresolved

Two Maryland Public Information Act requests we filed with the Town of Brentwood continue to be unresolved more than three years after the first request was sent to the town.

The requests were prompted by reports of erroneous speed readings by Optotraffic cameras, including ones in Brentwood, and also evidence that the speed limit boundaries on US1 had been altered prior to the deployment of a speed limit in Brentwood at that location.  The first request had been filed in October 2010.  Despite the fact that a certified mail receipt showed the request was received on October 18, 2010, and despite several inquiries we made to the town by email, no response was received for well over a year.

A second request requesting "correspondence between Brentwood and Optotraffic" pertaining to speed camera errors, as well as documents such as citation review procedures, was sent and received via certified mail in December 2011.  Once again, the request was not responded to within the time period required by law.  When the town eventually sent a letter in reply many months later in June 2012, they still provided no records and "neither granted nor formally denied" the request, and instead sent a fee schedule including a $200/hour fee for attorney services, with no total payable amount and no guarantee any documents would actually be provided if this were paid.  A response by us to this letter went unanswered for many more months.  In 2013 several letters were exchanged with the town over the matter, at which point the $200/hour fee was repeated by the town.  Brentwood provided few pages of budget information and the total number of tickets they issued, which was not part of the requests, and did not provide any "correspondence" or other documents we had actually requested.

More than 1000 days after the first request was received by the town, we filed the complaint in Circuit Court.  Filing such a complaint is not something we would take lightly.  We had sought to exhaust every other possible recourse before doing so, and those efforts are well documented in our complaint.  Simply put, it isn't supposed to require going to court or having teams of attorneys to obtain public records.  Anyone is supposed to be able to ask for them and get a response compliant with the Act within 30 days.

Brentwood has since filed an answer to the complaint, in which they admitted many of our assertions.  In their answer the town admitted that they did not respond within the timelines required by the MPIA, and that they 'neither granted nor formally denied' our request even in their 2012 letter.... about 20 months after the first request was received.

This is unfortunately only one of many examples of how poor compliance by local governments with the state's open records laws.  Indeed, we have seen this situation grow worse this year.  Last year StateIntegrity.org gave Maryland D- on it's "corruption risk report card" and an "F" on "Public Access to Information".  Maryland placed 40th out of 50 states in this ranking.  Certain public officials, such as Doug Gansler, have promised initiatives to improve government transparency.  Such initiatives definitely have merit.  Unfortunately the actions of the Office of Attorney General during Gansler's term does not, in our experience based on several interactions with the OAG, demonstrate a commitment to open government. In our opinion based on prior experience, the OAG is more likely to assist a local or state agency in circumventing the MPIA than they are to investigate an instance where a local government has violated the law.  And if the OAG, which publishes the state's manual on the Public Information Act, won't get involved in a positive way then what other state agency will?  Until such time as public officials currently in state office use the authority given to them to enforce the state's open records laws, it will continue to be up to private organizations and individuals to take matters into their own hands.

SHA Deploys New Camera in Frederick County

The Maryland State Highway Administration has announced that a new speed camera will be deployed in a workzone on Route 340/US 15 in Frederick County.  The location is between I-70 and Zion Road.  Tickets will begin going out on November 12.

The new mobile speed camera site, which is all about safety and has nothing to do with revenue, will be located in workzone where the highway speed limit has been temporarily reduced from 65mph to 55mph.  Citations may be issued 24/7 and "regardless of whether workers are present", according to the wording of state law.

The SHA deploys speed cameras in cooperation with the Maryland State Police under a contract with Xerox State and Local Solutions (formerly known as ACS State and Local Solutions).  Xerox is the same contractor who formerly ran Baltimore City's program before they lost the contract and the program was shut down due to revelations of systematic errors, errors which occurred even though the Baltimore devices passed all calibration tests.  To prove accuracy, the SHA now publishes annual calibration certificates online... certificates issued by the same "independent calibration lab" (MRA Digital) which "certified" the cameras which produced the errors in Baltimore.  However the SHA and Xerox need not worry about speed measurement errors being proven in the SafeZones program using the same method that erroneous speed readings were proven by us and by the Baltimore Sun, since unlike Baltimore City the SHA rounds off timestamps on citations to the nearest second and Xerox has refused requests to provide the time intervals for lidar cameras, even in response to a subpoena.  The SHA advocated against a change in the law which would have made precise timestamps mandatory in order to detect errors, a change which was successfully blocked with the assistance of heavy lobbying by Montgomery County and groups like the Maryland Association of Counties.

Another Optotraffic Client Faces Lawsuit

Maryland based speed camera company Optotraffic is running into more difficulties expanding their business into other states, as the city of Lucas Ohio is being sued over the legality of their camera program which Optotraffic runs, according to the Mansfield News Journal.

60 individuals, mostly from the towns of Mansfield, Lucas, and Perrysville.  Several business are also represented in the suit.  The town of Lucas started their speed camera program in February under contract with Maryland based Optotraffic LLC.  Several attorneys who had been approached separately by different clients came together to file a single class action suit.  Attorneys for the motorists laid out the complaints:

Cassandra Mayer, another of the seven attorneys representing the plaintiffs, said the local lawsuit is similar to one brought against the Village of Elmwood Place in Hamilton County. 

Attorneys for people issued speeding citations say the speed camera ordinance is invalid and unenforceable because the municipality never certified that it met state requirements to post the ordinance for at least 15 days before the program went into effect. 

They also argue that procedures for appealing tickets are not consistent with rules governing Ohio’s mayor’s courts, don’t require proper service of violation notices, don’t permit those receiving tickets to require the village or Optotraffic to testify or produce evidence and don’t permit parties to subpoena witnesses. 

“There is no right of confrontation,” Mayer said. “If somebody wants to challenge it, the ordinance does not provide for notice to attorneys,” she said. 

Under the ordinance, a vehicle owner trying to fight the ticket cannot merely convince a hearing officer that they weren’t driving, but must provide the name and address of the real driver — potentially requiring them to testify against a spouse, the lawsuit said.
Clients raised issues concerning whether speeding violations actually occurred, Mayer said. Some tickets were given on stretches of Ohio 39 where state speeds, not local speeds, actually were in effect, Mayer said. “In some of the pictures, you can even see the 55 mph speeding sign in the background,” she said.

The city has responded that they have done nothing wrong and that as a local government entity they are immune to being sued.

The nearby town of Elmwood place, also an Optotraffic Client, had their speed camera slammed and shut down by an Ohio judge over similar complaints.

While Ohio courts have been skeptical of these programs and willing to intervene under their interpretation Ohio's laws in some cases, Maryland courts have refused to consider similar cases.  In Maryland the Court of Appeals ruled that paying a fine is considered an "admission that they were speeding" (using those precise words without consideration of the issue that one might not even have been driving), and therefore that the only way to dispute the manner in which a speed camera program is run is to contest each individual ticket in district court, and ruled that under Maryland law the government is immune to class action suits regardless of whether the issue in dispute has merit and regardless of the severity or systematic nature of the issue in dispute.

Source: Mansfield News Journal: Lucas sued over its traffic cameras