E-mail Story
Print Friendly
Send E-mail
Reprint story
Monday, March 08, 2010
Ruling May Hurt Traffic Cameras
By Dan McKay
Copyright © 2010 Albuquerque Journal
Journal Staff Writer
Local attorney Joel Widman might have found a novel way to beat those camera-issued speeding citations: Get the video thrown out of court.
He won a default judgment last week when state District Judge Theresa Baca ruled the photograph and video involved in his speeding case were inadmissible, a serious blow to the argument against him. She remanded the citation back to the city of Albuquerque's administrative process for a hearing.
"If more people start latching onto this (argument), eventually it could have some impact," Widman told the Journal.
Traffic cameras are in place throughout New Mexico, including Santa Fe and Las Cruces, so Widman's argument could have statewide significance.
But Albuquerque City Attorney Bob White isn't convinced Widman found a sure-fire way to beat the system.
"We've been sued several times, and the (camera system) has always been upheld," White said.
The city also maintains it wasn't properly served with a notice of the litigation, so city attorneys will move to set aside the judgment because they weren't at the court hearing.
Widman's case comes amid questions about the effectiveness of the city's red-light cameras, installed at 20 intersections.
Mayor Richard Berry's administration is working with the University of New Mexico on an independent review of whether the program has reduced accidents and improved public safety.
City officials say Albuquerque's overall rate of accidents involving death or injury has declined in recent years, although there's still debate over whether the cameras contributed to the drop.
Citations issued through the program are a civil offense and handled under Albuquerque's nuisance-abatement law. Offenders pay a $75 fine.
The city hasn't used the program to seize or boot any vehicles, as it does in some nuisance cases. Instead, failure to pay citations is turned over to an Austin, Texas-based collections agency.
The program issued about 481,000 citations through the end of 2009. About 19,000 citations have been referred to collections because of unpaid fines, according to the mayor's office.
Widman's case began late last year when a city camera at Paseo del Norte and Coors NW took footage of his vehicle. He received a mailed citation in November, accusing him of driving 55 mph in a 45 mph zone.
Widman told the Journal he was merely driving with the flow of traffic. Asked whether he exceeded the speed limit, Widman replied, "Do I have to answer that?"
He challenged the citation through the city's administrative hearing process. After a denial there, he took the case to state District Court.
Widman, in his arguments, relied on the "silent witness" theory for photographic evidence.
In a state Appeals Court case, N.M. v. Henderson, justices ruled that a particular photo was admissible, but they set out certain standards for permitting such evidence. They ruled that photo evidence can be admitted if the photo "speaks for itself" or if someone with personal knowledge can testify that it's a fair and accurate representation of what occurred.
Widman argues that traffic-camera videos don't meet that standard, at least for speeding violations. In his case, for example, he said the video simply showed his vehicle driving down the street. It wasn't clear he was speeding, Widman said, and no one would have personal knowledge that he was.
On the other hand, he said, video of someone running a red light would be admissible because the video would show a vehicle passing through the intersection after the light changed, an obvious "speaks for itself" type of evidence, in his view.
For those accused of speeding, dismissal of the citation is "kind of a formality" if the video is inadmissible, Widman said.
"If they can't introduce the videos or the photograph, there's no way of linking the data to the vehicle," he said.
White disagrees with Widman's analysis.
He pointed out that the Henderson case found that a photo from a stationary camera is admissible in court. The litigation in that instance didn't involve Albuquerque's traffic cameras; the justices were ruling on footage from a bank's camera.
White added that the entire issue could be moot anyway. The city dismissed Widman's citation "because of issues with the record" that were entirely unrelated to his appeal.
You also can send comments via our comment form
|
|
