Montgomery County has asserted that it is not required to present speed camera operators in court even if the defendants request them to appear in writing.
One individual challenging a speed camera reported to us that he asked the Safe Speed Program's representative over the phone how to request the operator appear, and was told that for fixed pole cameras the operator who signed the camera logs and performed the 'daily self test' would not actually be present, that the operator's supervisor would appear instead.
StopBigBrotherMD.org sent an email to the the safe speed program on December 16th requesting confirmation of this fact, and we did not receive a response by Dec 28th. We then called the safe speed program's phone number and asked whether if a defendant requested the operator appear whether it would be the actual operator who signed the camera logs for the day of the violation. The representative Stated that for mobile units the actual technician would be present if requested, however for fixed pole cameras it would be the operator's supervisor who appeared instead and that he would present the camera logs. We then asked if a defendant wanted to ask a question such as 'were you working on this day' for a ticket issued on a weekend (as we had previously reported that many speed camera logs had not been filled in on for several days in a row, particularly weekends and holidays) she at first seemed to sidestep the question by stating that school zone cameras do not issue tickets on weekends. When we pointed out to her that Montgomery county has many cameras that are not in school zones (and in fact the large majority of Montgomery County's speed cameras are not located in school zones) she stated that she believed the logs were filled out before and after the weekend if the operator was not working.
While the county's position appears to be that presenting the operator is not required, judges have not always agreed with this. One defendant at a Montgomery County District Court 'Speed Camera Day' in November 2010 stated that his citation was dismissed when the operator who signed the camera's logs was not present, and he was able to prove that he sent the request for the operator by certified mail. The county's representative reportedly argued on that day that on other occasions just having the logs was enough.
In addition, the Montgomery County Office Of Legislative Oversight's report on the safe speed program (Sept 29, 2009) did include "Violator requested the Technician to be present at the hearing and Technician was not available;" as one of the few reasons why speed camera citations had been dismissed by the District Court (see pg 38). Thus there were at least some cases prior to Sept 2009 when a judge decided against the county on this basis. It is probable the county does in fact have a District Court precedent supporting their side (they have yet to respond to our request for a copy of any such decision), but such a court decision was probably based on a defendant appearing without an attorney (as is the case with almost every defendant on speed camera day) who would not have been prepared to counter any legal argument the County's teams of paid attorneys would have constructed. As such we don't believe defendants (or courts) should take Montgomery County at their word if they try to claim that this is decided law.
We note however the current wording of state law for speed monitoring systems (sec 21-809) reads as follows :
"(2) If a person who received a citation under subsection (d) of this section desires THE speed monitoring system operator to be present and testify at trial, the person shall notify the court and the State in writing no later than 20 days before trial."
We note that the wording is "the" speed monitoring system operator, not "a" speed monitoring system operator, and that another portion of the state law specifies that it is the camera operator's duty to perform the self tests on the machine and fill out and sign a daily setup logs. As such specific duties of the operator are spelled out. One could read this and conclude that the intent was to require the county to present someone in court who was capable of testifying about how the device was ACTUALLY operated in this particular instance, not how it is supposed to be operated in theory. Otherwise the county could simply deliberately not choose to present a person in court who might need to admit to an error or problem with the system. Thus, regardless of the county's position, a court could possibly still interpret this as meaning the specific operator who signed the logs must still attend upon request. We suggest that if it was the intention of the Maryland General Assembly to explicitly strip citizens of their right to face the camera operator in court, then they should consider rewording this in the 2011 session (which will start in January), among the other changes they will no doubt be considering to further reduce the legal rights of Maryland drivers.
Blog Archive
-
►
2019
(3)
- ► November 2019 (1)
- ► August 2019 (1)
- ► February 2019 (1)
-
►
2018
(10)
- ► December 2018 (1)
- ► October 2018 (1)
- ► August 2018 (1)
- ► April 2018 (1)
- ► February 2018 (4)
- ► January 2018 (2)
-
►
2017
(20)
- ► December 2017 (1)
- ► September 2017 (2)
- ► August 2017 (4)
- ► March 2017 (2)
- ► February 2017 (5)
- ► January 2017 (5)
-
►
2016
(21)
- ► December 2016 (4)
- ► November 2016 (3)
- ► October 2016 (1)
- ► April 2016 (2)
- ► March 2016 (2)
- ► February 2016 (4)
- ► January 2016 (3)
-
►
2015
(39)
- ► December 2015 (2)
- ► October 2015 (1)
- ► September 2015 (5)
- ► August 2015 (3)
- ► April 2015 (1)
- ► March 2015 (5)
- ► February 2015 (5)
- ► January 2015 (5)
-
►
2014
(82)
- ► December 2014 (4)
- ► November 2014 (3)
- ► October 2014 (3)
- ► September 2014 (9)
- ► August 2014 (6)
- ► April 2014 (4)
- ► March 2014 (10)
- ► February 2014 (14)
- ► January 2014 (12)
-
►
2013
(102)
- ► December 2013 (11)
- ► November 2013 (10)
- ► October 2013 (9)
- ► September 2013 (5)
- ► August 2013 (7)
- ► April 2013 (7)
- ► March 2013 (14)
- ► February 2013 (6)
- ► January 2013 (8)
-
►
2012
(66)
- ► December 2012 (6)
- ► November 2012 (4)
- ► October 2012 (9)
- ► September 2012 (8)
- ► August 2012 (8)
- ► April 2012 (2)
- ► March 2012 (8)
- ► February 2012 (7)
- ► January 2012 (7)
-
►
2011
(88)
- ► December 2011 (3)
- ► November 2011 (4)
- ► October 2011 (7)
- ► September 2011 (5)
- ► August 2011 (7)
- ► April 2011 (6)
- ► March 2011 (9)
- ► February 2011 (10)
- ► January 2011 (10)
-
▼
2010
(69)
-
▼
December 2010
(6)
- Resolve to Fight Scameras in the New Year!
- Baltimore County Councilmember Calls for Speed Cam...
- Montgomery County Safe Speed Says Operators Need N...
- Baltimore Speed Cameras Made $15million in First ...
- Speed Limit Changed at College Park Camera Site
- Full Body Scans... For Your Car? Coming Soon to a...
- ► November 2010 (4)
- ► October 2010 (10)
- ► September 2010 (9)
- ► August 2010 (4)
- ► April 2010 (4)
- ► March 2010 (6)
- ► February 2010 (4)
- ► January 2010 (6)
-
▼
December 2010
(6)
-
►
2009
(58)
- ► December 2009 (4)
- ► November 2009 (6)
- ► October 2009 (9)
- ► September 2009 (6)
- ► August 2009 (1)
- ► April 2009 (5)
- ► March 2009 (6)
- ► February 2009 (6)
- ► January 2009 (7)
-
►
2008
(17)
- ► December 2008 (4)
- ► November 2008 (4)
- ► October 2008 (1)
- ► September 2008 (1)
- ► August 2008 (2)
- ► March 2008 (2)

Our Top Stories
- Rockville Falsely Accuses School Bus of Speeding
- Montgomery County Has Secret Speed Camera Committee -- Press and Critics Not Welcome
- Montgomery Speed Camera "OmBudsman" Won't Answer Questions
- Montgomery County Issues Erroneous Tickets
- College Park Cited Stationary Bus for Speeding
- Montgomery County ATEU Defends Culture of Secrecy
- How Two-Faced Triple-A Gave Maryland Speed Cameras
- "Secret" Baltimore Speed Camera Audit Found 10% Error Rate
- Speed Camera Reform Act Just a Big Fat Lie
- Court Rules Against Morningside on Public Records Access
- Speed Camera Company Celebrates "Bounty System" Loophole
- Montgomery County Steals Lanes for Expensive Bus Program
- Wicomico County Teachers Say Camera is Not Accurate
- Montgomery Council President Rice Racked Up Tickets
- Circuit Court Rules Innocence is a Defense, Rejects "Snitch" Requirement
- Baltimore Ends Camera Contract, Moves to Hides Records
- Montgomery Scamera Boss Lies About Red Light Camera "Warning Flashes"
- Montgomery County Camera Boss Blocks Public From Secret Meeting
- Salisbury Records Show Calibration Lapses, Sorry No Refunds!!
- Speed Camera Accuracy Questioned in Morningside
- Attorny General Gansler Depicted as "Reckless Passenger"
- Morningside Deployed Cameras Despite County Denial
- Morningside Admits Maintaining No Calibration Records, Doesn't Operate Own Cameras
- ACLU Documents Mass Tracking of Motorists By License Plate Scannrs
- Brekford Demands Tribute to See Calibration Records
- Access To Brekford Calibration Records Stalled in Salisbury, Morningside
- Public and Private Lobbyists Worked to Kill Speed Camera Reform
- Montgomery County Speed Camera Transforms Toyota into Dodge
- Montgomery County Boasts Error Rate "Under Ten Percent"
- Speed Camera Company Collects Dirt on Competitors
- Woman Gets 3 Tickets from DC Without Going There
- Legislature Raises Gas Tax
- Laurel, Hagerstown Circumvent Calibration Requirement
- Speed Camera Calibration Fails To Ensure Accuracy
- Speed Camera Programs Flout Sunshine Law
- Xerox Admits 5% Error Rate For Speed Camera Tickets
- Baltimore Cites Motionless Car For Speeding
- O'Malley Says Speed Camera Bounties Are Illegal
- Baltimore Ticketed Innocent Delivery Vehicle: Documents Prove Speed Camera Error
- Rockville Sees Huge Surge in Red Light Violations
- Trucking Company Challenges Accuracy of Baltimore Citations: Videos Prove Speed Camera Errors
- Speed Camera Salesman Caught Speeding AGAIN
- Riverdale Park Defends Forgery of Police Signatures
- High Court Rules Local Governments Above the Law
- Riverdale Park Allowed Civilians to Forge Police Approvals
- Baltimore Speed Camera Issues Ticket to the Dead
- Statewide Speed Cameras Now a $77Million Per Year Industry
- PG County Court Presumes All Defendants Guilty
- Town Releases Documents Proving Errors With Optotraffic Cameras
- Man arrested for asserting innocence in speed camera hearing
- Optotraffic Representative Caught Speeding
- Driver Uses Carchip to Challenge Optotraffic Camera
- Deceased Baltimore Cop Signs 2000 Citations
- Montgomery County Denies Right To Face Camera Operator In Court
- ACS Buys Steak Dinners For Lawmakers
- Baltimore City Issues Hundreds of Tickets in Error
- Baltimore Writes Speed Camera Revenues Into Budget Before Cameras Approved
- Camera Mistakenly Accuses Driver of 100mph Rampage
- Montgomery County Scamera Contract Includes Massive PR Campaign
- Optotraffic Investigates Possible Speed Camera Errors
- Speed Camera Legislation Attracts Lobbyists
- Sykesville Voters Overturn Speed Cameras in Referendum
- Traffic Engineering Techniques Out-perform Speed Cameras
- Transportation Planning Board Unveils Plan to Track and Tax Drivers
