Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Arizona photo enforcement citation loop holes result in a reported 20% dismissal rate




Arizona Photo enforcement loophole (flaws) dismisses 1 in 5 tickets (20%)

I was recently contacted by an Arizona ABC News affiliate, ABC 15 News (KNVX-TV Phoenix).

It would appear that I am not the only one who has been receiving flawed photo enforcement citations which fail to meet the long-established standards of due process of law, as codified in our U.S. Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

The good news is, a high percentage of flawed photo enforcement traffic citations are being tossed out, as reported by ABC 15 News investigative staff, Dan Siegel (investigative producer) and Joe Ducey (investigative reporter).

The bad news is, this is only the beginning of what most assuredly will be a long-battle between individuals utmost concerned about their civil liberties and the political "climate" of where the promises of "safety" come before everything else (except.. of course, corporate profits and budget short-falls).

I am confident that the powers-that-be, will continue their fight to further erode our already fragile civil liberties.

KNXV-TV Phoenix, further reports that Arizona is one of only four states where photo enforcement tickets (ie; photo radar speed camera) count against the licensed driver of the vehicle, although no detail was provided as to how a rear-view photo of a vehicle's license plate can be used to accurately identify the driver.

It's been reported that Arizona, requires that photo enforcement tickets need to be personally served, by process servers, within a 3-month period (90 days) before becoming invalid (dismissed).



While the Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano, may have managed to ostensibly make a 'valid' argument for red light cameras, speed cameras on the notion that the implementation of these technologies provide reductions in man-power [of law enforcement personnel, which can be used for other law enforcement duties, as does the City of Philadelphia], when this claim is examined more closely, it appears to be a disingenuous claim, especially when one considers the additional man-power required to serve, by individuals, these automated photo enforcement tickets.

When will the "insanity" end? The answer is Arizonans are going to have to put up with these disingenuous safety measures until the 2010 election year. Let's hope that when the time comes, the voters of Arizona will decide its time for a positive change from business as usual. Perhaps, Arizonans, should call for an immediate referendum on this matter, before Phoenix ends looking like London, England (the rich irony of this situation!)

I hope both Dan and Joe, of ABC 15, will continue to dig deeper in their ongoing investigation of the full impact photo enforcement has upon the residents of Arizona and our nation, at large.

Big Brother, our should we call her Big Sister

Fair warning, guys, prepare to be intimated by certain legislators, lobbyists, politically-minded law enforcement officers, and yes, Janet Napolitano's own administration—who are hell-bent on implementing these speed cameras and related technologies at whatever the "costs" (to our individual freedoms), without a full and proper public vetting processes, and most importantly without regard to the safety and well-being of the voters. And, I am not just talking about traffic safety.

The full text of Dan and Joe's article, can be located, here:

Arizona Photo enforcement loophole dismisses 1 in 5 tickets (20%)

Bottom Line: Expect further erosions to your civil liberties by the likes of Arizona Governor, the state's legislative and political arms to further erode of Arizona residents' right to due process of law, as a means to close this "loophole."

Again, I remind my readers:

"Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."
Related reading:

Veil Guy
Post a Comment