The Court of Appeals, the highest court in Maryland, heard arguments yesterday regarding Montgomery County's contingent fee contract. At issue is the fact that Montgomery County pays it's contractor ACS State and Local Solutions $16.25 per ticket despite language in the state law that "If a contractor operates a speed monitoring system on behalf of a local jurisdiction, the contractor's fee may not be contingent on the number of citations issued or paid." Attorney Timothy Leahy from Byrd and Byrd LLC represented the plaintiffs in this case.
Last year the Court of Special Appeals ruled against the plaintiffs, stating that because the county's contract was changed in 2009 to state that ACS is not the 'operator', there is "no reason" to look beyond the language of the contract to determine whether what the contractor does constitutes 'operating' the cameras. Additionally, the lower court ruled that the only legal way to contest a speed camera citation is to do so individually in district court, and that paying a ticket is an admission of guilt which waives any right to a class action. In our opinion, this ruling had the effect of shutting off any legal recourse against any speed camera program for any reason, even in the event of blatant misconduct by the agencies issuing the tickets, since motorists cannot individually afford to hire attorneys and expert witnesses to match the resources of governments and well heeled camera companies. Even if successful, winning in district court on a single ticket has no effect on other tickets issued by the program -- so the local government keeps the revenue from all the other tickets unless EVERY ticket recipient contests it individually.
In March the Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case, and will now determine whether this decision stands.
Contingent fee contracts raise issues for some because it creates an incentive for the contractor to maximize the number of citations issued. If the contractor has control over the maintenance, calibrations, or placement of cameras, or the processing of violations and evidence, then the potential exists for a contractor to influence the placement of cameras at speed limit boundaries, or to allow citations to be issued and prosecuted based on faulty or insufficient proof of a violation.
The fact that the original intent of state law was to ban per-ticket payments was written into the legislative history. The fiscal policy notes for HB443(the 2005 legislation which authorized Montgomery County to first use speed cameras) stated "The contractor’s fee for a speed enforcement system may not be contingent on the number of citations issued.", and when comparing the legislation to existing red light camera programs stated "If
new speed monitoring systems were implemented in a similar fashion,
Montgomery County would be expected to contract for the necessary
services, although the vendors would not be paid based on the number of
citations." Thus the original legislative intent was that there would be no contingent fees paid to contractors.
Some legislators also touted the restriction to their constituents in order to justify their support for statewide speed cameras. Sor example State delegates Dana M. Stein(D, Baltimore County) and Pam Beidle
(D, Anne Arundal County) both wrote about the restriction in their
newsletters in 2008, when statewide speed camera legislation was being
the bill prohibits a speed camera contractor’s fee from being linked to
the number of citations issued by the device or paid by speeders."
Promises that contractors would not be paid based on the number of
tickets were given to motorist groups such as AAA to win their support
for speed cameras.
Shortly before the fact of the county's contingent fee contract was revealed, County Executive Ike Leggett publicly stated in an online town hall meeting in response to a question about why the contractor was getting a 40% cut of the fines, "Under the contract, we pay a flat fee, and the County receives significantly more than 60 percent." --- a statement which was proven to be complete and total lie a few weeks later. In addition council member Phil Andrews, one of the county council's strongest advocates for speed cameras, stated in these May 2006 county council minutes (page 132, lines 15-16) that "contractors are not paid based on the number of citations, that's built-in", a promise which in fact was not kept by the county council.
In 2010 this website that both Montgomery County and Gaithersburg were systematically failing to perform certain duties required of the 'operator' of speed cameras under state law. This makes it clear that who operates the cameras is a 'matter of fact' on the ground, not a 'matter of law' on which physical reality has no bearing. The fact that both jurisdictions felt free to not perform required system checks left ACS to monitor and control the devices, and if that does not constitute 'operating' then one might as whether any government agency can ignore *any law* for any reason at all using semantics. And one might worry how the more opportunistic local governments in the state might respond to such a ruling.
- ► 2016 (21)
- ► 2015 (39)
- ► 2014 (82)
- ► 2013 (102)
- ▼ June 2012 (4)
- ► 2011 (88)
- ► 2010 (69)
- ► 2009 (58)
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