Frederick Ludwig is an attorney who specializes in construction and product liability litigation. Several months ago, he received a notice in the mail of a red-light camera violation for making a rolling right turn onto Skinker Boulevard from Forsyth Boulevard. A few days later, he received a notice of a second violation. This time, he had made a rolling right turn onto Union Boulevard from Delmar Boulevard.
Or at least somebody driving his car had made those turns.
He could pay the tickets — each was $100 — or challenge them in court. Out of curiosity, he plugged the search term “red light camera†into a legal database of Missouri case law. Up popped appellate court decisions against red-light camera laws. He decided he was not going to pay for allegedly violating laws that had been struck down.
He prepared a motion to dismiss — based on the appellate decisions — and went to traffic court earlier this month. He watched a man make arrangements to pay half his ticket that day and half later. Then Ludwig approached the clerk with his motion and his ticket. The clerk asked if he was a lawyer. He said he was and he was representing himself. Just write your bar number on the violation and it will be dismissed, the clerk told him. Then she asked if he had more than one ticket. He said he had a second. Write your bar number on that and it will be dismissed, too, the clerk said.
People are also reading…
So he did, but he did not feel good about the experience. Unsophisticated people were being taken advantage of, he thought.
He is not the only one who makes that argument.
“People call me, and I tell them, ‘I don’t represent you so I can’t give you advice, but if I got one, I wouldn’t pay it,’ †said attorney Bevis Schock. He is a longtime critic of red-light cameras and speed cameras. He and his co-counsel, Hugh Eastwood, have that could decide the legality of these camera tickets.
Essentially, there are two arguments. Red-light camera tickets do not result in points being assessed against a driving record, which state law requires for moving violations. Proponents of the tickets argue that the violation is for being present in the intersection at the wrong time, not for being in motion.
Second, there is the presumption that the owner of the vehicle is the driver. Proponents of the camera tickets point out that the presumption holds true for parking tickets, but
One of the cases in front of the Missouri Supreme Court challenges the city’s red-light camera law. While the city’s challenge to that ruling is pending, all money collected goes into an escrow account. There is $5.1 million in that account now. If the Supreme Court rules against the city, that money will be returned to the people who have paid.
At the moment, things are in a state of confusion. I saw that when I went to a red-light camera docket in the city’s traffic court last week. (It was in a different courtroom than Ludwig had gone to.) Eighteen people showed up. Municipal Judge Joan Miller explained that if a person pleaded guilty, no points would be assessed against them, and if they didn’t pay their fines, no warrants would be issued for their arrest.
Three people lined up to plead guilty and pay, or make arrangements to pay. The others rolled the dice.
Whether or not you favor red-light cameras, the mini-trials make for good theater. The defendant — and the spectators — get to watch on a computer as the defendant’s car approaches the light and stops, or doesn’t stop. When he ran the red-light camera docket like a game show. “Come on up to the front,†he’d say cheerfully. “Let’s see how you do today.†Then he’d start the video. “All right, here comes your car. Stop! Stop! Oh no!†he’d say as the car rolled through the light.
Teer is now the deputy director and general counsel for the Missouri Office of Community Engagement.
Miller was not as much fun, but she was cheerful. “Close enough,†she’d say if somebody’s car almost stopped. “That’s a violation,†she’d say when somebody’s car rolled through.
One man argued against the concept of the red-light camera tickets. His name was Jay Straughter, and he had an interesting point. He was part of a class-action lawsuit against red-light camera tickets. That lawsuit was settled in March. The lawsuit alleged that the people getting tickets had been deprived of due process. Twenty seven municipalities, including ºüÀêÊÓƵ, agreed to the settlement but did not admit to the allegations in the lawsuit. Class members got $20 for each ticket they had paid. Straughter received $80.
So if he was being partly refunded for tickets he had received in the past, why should he be paying $100 for a new ticket?
He and Miller argued back and forth, and then he left. Neither a winner nor a loser. Like the whole camera ticket issue, his case is up in the air.