Resistance is Futile
You may wonder why I titled this rant about so-called red-light cameras with a line from Star Trek: The Next Generation, uttered by The Borg. (I started out thinking I would call it "The injustice of the red light camera.") It's because, in my attempt to avoid having to pay the excessive seventy-five dollar fine, I have run up against what feels like the stone, or metal, wall encountered by humans who meet up with The Borg.
I have received tickets from the cameras three times. The first happened when making a right turn on red, which is not illegal. However, according to the camera and the hearing officer, my stop was four-tenths of a second too short, and therefore illegal. The second occurred after making a left turn on an arrow some unknown tenths of a second after it turned red—I didn't request a hearing that time, because I couldn't think of an argument that would win me an dismissal or at least a reduction in my fine. Actually, I don't think there is such a thing as a reduction. There may not even be such a thing as an dismissal. The third, and most recent one, took place at 12:30 a.m. on July 20, 2010.
I was on my way home from working as a grief counselor for the employees of Emcore, where a horrendous multiple murder scene had taken place a few days before. I knew as soon as I went through the intersection and saw a flash of light in the dark night that I had done something to generate a ticket from the camera. I waited at home for the bad news in the mail, even though this date was after cameras were removed from three intersections because they were on state highways. Central Avenue is still a state highway, as far as I knew. When I received the notice of violation in the mail, it stated that I had been going 45 miles an hour in a 35 mph speed limit zone.
The hearings for these infractions take place separate from Metro Court, since the violations are in a different class from ordinary traffic tickets. The cameras are not even owned by the city, but by a private company somewhere in Arizona. I had received and read a humorous article in my French class, Police Checkpoints: how to avoid problems? Translating freely, the three rules are: #1,don't discuss, i.e., don't try to give the officer excuses; #2, don't lie—this is a corollary to the first; and #3, stay calm, above all stay calm.
Aggression will complicate the situation irrevocably. Be polite with the forces of law and order, at least as much as they are with you. Don't believe that a smile will betray you. It won't cost you anything. Follow the instructions that they give you, like a good student, "Your papers, please, and exit from the vehicle." Don't sigh and don't tense up. If you haven't done anything irreparable, there is no reason that the stop will go badly. If you respect these three principles, you will see that even law enforcement officers sometimes have their hand on their hearts.
The only problem with all of this is that there is no traffic stop, and there is no contact with a human being. It's you (or me) against the robot, against the machine. So, skipping these rules, go directly to "jail" and pay the $75 fine. The trouble is, these are administrative processes, not criminal misdemeanors at all. According to my lawyer friend, they are a beast unto themselves, without any real due process, and unconstitutional. Breaking those rules, I wanted to discuss my ticket. In the past, I had often been able to overcome parking tickets and simple moving violations by going to court and presenting my defense.
In the hearing room on the date assigned, I listened to the procedure of the victims before me, as they presented their thinking to the police officer conducting the pre-hearing counseling. He spoke of having the laws for reduction of risk and preventing accidents. He mentioned something about nuisance control. You may have heard of the city's task force on nuisance abatement which sometimes results in old hotels on Route 66 being torn down because of their unsavory clientele, and old ladies being evicted from their homes. The officer succeeded in discouraging several people from going to hearing. A couple said they just came to hear the explanation of why they got their tickets. One woman was upset because it was ruining her perfect record of no tickets in 40 years. The officer spoke as if from a scripted response sheet of talking points.
Finally, just one man and I were left wanting a hearing. Then the judge came in. Only she's not a judge, but a City Administrative Hearing Officer. She seemed warm enough, in a formal kind of way, as if she, too, were pre-programmed. When it came to my turn I told why I was on the street after midnight, returning home from doing grief counseling. The hearing officer told the police officer to look up the dates of the Emcore incident, and he apparently did an internet search on his laptop verifying that my violation was within a couple of weeks, but not the day following the incident. Therefore, I wasn't overcome by emotion because of the intensity of the event, she concluded. So, now she's doing mental health evaluations as well! I didn't say anything, but I thought it wouldn't have been in my favor to be driving if I were overwhelmed.
I pointed out that there were no other cars or people on the street at the time that the camera caught the alleged speeding, and therefore, it was unlikely that I would have caused an accident. I wasn't causing a nuisance or safety hazard of any kind. The police officer was in the role of prosecutor, and apparently had a close relationship to the "judge." He pointed out that there was no way of knowing that a pedestrian wouldn't suddenly dash out into the street. He went into his talking points again, regurgitating the general case of accident prevention and nuisance control being the reason for the law. The "judge" again asked me why I had mentioned where I was coming from and what I had been doing, trying to determine if there was another aspect of my thinking that I hadn't brought out. What I didn't think of saying at the time, but only after the hearing was over and I had walked out the door and onto the elevator, was that my intention was to throw myself on the mercy of the court.
As I was handed my paperwork, an order to pay the fine within 35 days, with payment instructions, I was told that if I desired, I could appeal the judge's ruling. On my way out the door, I turned to the third page of what I had been handed. Browsing down to statement number 2, I read: "THE FILING FEE OF $132 will NOT BE REFUNDED IF YOUR PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARE IS NOT GRANTED [sic]". So, this is where the Catch-22 comes in. You may appeal to District Court. Up until now, we've been operating within S.T.O.P. That stands for Safe Traffic Operations Program. However, it will cost you $132 even if you win, and if you don't, it will cost you that as well as the $75 fine. There is no way to come out ahead in this scenario. Why bother to appeal? Is this justice? The driver is warned , before paying a filing fee that it can be very helpful to discuss your rights and options with an attorney. In other words, if you haven't figured it out by yourself, your attorney will tell you, "Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated."
* * *
Ironically, the day after I wrote this, the contract for the "Photo-Stop" cameras expired, and they were turned off. A study made by the University of New Mexico showed that the cameras did not decrease the rate for accidents. However, after consideration by the mayor, as well as the city council, the contract for the cameras will be extended and they will be turned on again at the end of this week. However, they will not target speeders, only those who go through red lights.
I have received tickets from the cameras three times. The first happened when making a right turn on red, which is not illegal. However, according to the camera and the hearing officer, my stop was four-tenths of a second too short, and therefore illegal. The second occurred after making a left turn on an arrow some unknown tenths of a second after it turned red—I didn't request a hearing that time, because I couldn't think of an argument that would win me an dismissal or at least a reduction in my fine. Actually, I don't think there is such a thing as a reduction. There may not even be such a thing as an dismissal. The third, and most recent one, took place at 12:30 a.m. on July 20, 2010.
I was on my way home from working as a grief counselor for the employees of Emcore, where a horrendous multiple murder scene had taken place a few days before. I knew as soon as I went through the intersection and saw a flash of light in the dark night that I had done something to generate a ticket from the camera. I waited at home for the bad news in the mail, even though this date was after cameras were removed from three intersections because they were on state highways. Central Avenue is still a state highway, as far as I knew. When I received the notice of violation in the mail, it stated that I had been going 45 miles an hour in a 35 mph speed limit zone.
The hearings for these infractions take place separate from Metro Court, since the violations are in a different class from ordinary traffic tickets. The cameras are not even owned by the city, but by a private company somewhere in Arizona. I had received and read a humorous article in my French class, Police Checkpoints: how to avoid problems? Translating freely, the three rules are: #1,don't discuss, i.e., don't try to give the officer excuses; #2, don't lie—this is a corollary to the first; and #3, stay calm, above all stay calm.
Aggression will complicate the situation irrevocably. Be polite with the forces of law and order, at least as much as they are with you. Don't believe that a smile will betray you. It won't cost you anything. Follow the instructions that they give you, like a good student, "Your papers, please, and exit from the vehicle." Don't sigh and don't tense up. If you haven't done anything irreparable, there is no reason that the stop will go badly. If you respect these three principles, you will see that even law enforcement officers sometimes have their hand on their hearts.
The only problem with all of this is that there is no traffic stop, and there is no contact with a human being. It's you (or me) against the robot, against the machine. So, skipping these rules, go directly to "jail" and pay the $75 fine. The trouble is, these are administrative processes, not criminal misdemeanors at all. According to my lawyer friend, they are a beast unto themselves, without any real due process, and unconstitutional. Breaking those rules, I wanted to discuss my ticket. In the past, I had often been able to overcome parking tickets and simple moving violations by going to court and presenting my defense.
In the hearing room on the date assigned, I listened to the procedure of the victims before me, as they presented their thinking to the police officer conducting the pre-hearing counseling. He spoke of having the laws for reduction of risk and preventing accidents. He mentioned something about nuisance control. You may have heard of the city's task force on nuisance abatement which sometimes results in old hotels on Route 66 being torn down because of their unsavory clientele, and old ladies being evicted from their homes. The officer succeeded in discouraging several people from going to hearing. A couple said they just came to hear the explanation of why they got their tickets. One woman was upset because it was ruining her perfect record of no tickets in 40 years. The officer spoke as if from a scripted response sheet of talking points.
Finally, just one man and I were left wanting a hearing. Then the judge came in. Only she's not a judge, but a City Administrative Hearing Officer. She seemed warm enough, in a formal kind of way, as if she, too, were pre-programmed. When it came to my turn I told why I was on the street after midnight, returning home from doing grief counseling. The hearing officer told the police officer to look up the dates of the Emcore incident, and he apparently did an internet search on his laptop verifying that my violation was within a couple of weeks, but not the day following the incident. Therefore, I wasn't overcome by emotion because of the intensity of the event, she concluded. So, now she's doing mental health evaluations as well! I didn't say anything, but I thought it wouldn't have been in my favor to be driving if I were overwhelmed.
I pointed out that there were no other cars or people on the street at the time that the camera caught the alleged speeding, and therefore, it was unlikely that I would have caused an accident. I wasn't causing a nuisance or safety hazard of any kind. The police officer was in the role of prosecutor, and apparently had a close relationship to the "judge." He pointed out that there was no way of knowing that a pedestrian wouldn't suddenly dash out into the street. He went into his talking points again, regurgitating the general case of accident prevention and nuisance control being the reason for the law. The "judge" again asked me why I had mentioned where I was coming from and what I had been doing, trying to determine if there was another aspect of my thinking that I hadn't brought out. What I didn't think of saying at the time, but only after the hearing was over and I had walked out the door and onto the elevator, was that my intention was to throw myself on the mercy of the court.
As I was handed my paperwork, an order to pay the fine within 35 days, with payment instructions, I was told that if I desired, I could appeal the judge's ruling. On my way out the door, I turned to the third page of what I had been handed. Browsing down to statement number 2, I read: "THE FILING FEE OF $132 will NOT BE REFUNDED IF YOUR PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARE IS NOT GRANTED [sic]". So, this is where the Catch-22 comes in. You may appeal to District Court. Up until now, we've been operating within S.T.O.P. That stands for Safe Traffic Operations Program. However, it will cost you $132 even if you win, and if you don't, it will cost you that as well as the $75 fine. There is no way to come out ahead in this scenario. Why bother to appeal? Is this justice? The driver is warned , before paying a filing fee that it can be very helpful to discuss your rights and options with an attorney. In other words, if you haven't figured it out by yourself, your attorney will tell you, "Resistance if futile. You will be assimilated."
* * *
Ironically, the day after I wrote this, the contract for the "Photo-Stop" cameras expired, and they were turned off. A study made by the University of New Mexico showed that the cameras did not decrease the rate for accidents. However, after consideration by the mayor, as well as the city council, the contract for the cameras will be extended and they will be turned on again at the end of this week. However, they will not target speeders, only those who go through red lights.
Labels: borg, red-light cameras, resistance, speeding, star trek, tickets