OR photo radar

[clean record]

What is the name of your state? Oregon

Hello, I received, through regular mail, a citation and and a picture stating that I must pay or appear in court.

I don't go around speeding intentionally so I really don't know if I was and if the photo radar is accurate.

There were no signs visible stating photo radar was in use.

I enjoy having a clean record and low insurance premiums and I'm not a habitual speeder. If there are any technicalities - loopholes I would be grateful to know them.

I've read, on the internet, someone's case was dismissed because he was drinking from a container at the time the photo was taken. How much of the face must be visible to get a positive ID?

Here's the pic they sent. I blocked the eyes because I'm posting in a public board. The mouth is obscured as you can see.

[URL=http://imageshack.us]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/9193/photlu4.jpg[/URL]

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by clean record

What is the name of your state? Oregon

Hello, I received, through regular mail, a citation and and a picture stating that I must pay or appear in court.

I don't go around speeding intentionally so I really don't know if I was and if the photo radar is accurate.

There were no signs visible stating photo radar was in use.

I enjoy having a clean record and low insurance premiums and I'm not a habitual speeder. If there are any technicalities - loopholes I would be grateful to know them.

I've read, on the internet, someone's case was dismissed because he was drinking from a container at the time the photo was taken. How much of the face must be visible to get a positive ID?

Here's the pic they sent. I blocked the eyes because I'm posting in a public board. The mouth is obscured as you can see.

[URL=http://imageshack.us]http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/9193/photlu4.jpg[/URL]

If they sent you the picture, they feel that you are identifiable enough...

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Zigner

If they sent you the picture, they feel that you are identifiable enough...

No they don't. They feel like they can send you the ticket and hope you pay it without arguing.

I really don't have any experience with OR law, but in CA they do photo tickets all the time. They also send out "snitch tickets". This is a ticket where you are basically (and wrongly) told that if you aren't the person in the picture, you have to snitch on the person who is since it is your car. This is a fishing expedition. There is tons of evidence of abuses with photo tickets.

As I said, I don't really know OR law, but in CA, it isn't real hard to beat a photo ticket. You should research the laws concerning processing of the film, chain of custody, etc. Furthermore, when you go to court, you cannot be "accused" by a machine. You have a constitutional right to face your accuser. So, the person who would have to show up to testify against you would have to have first hand knowlege that he can testify to. That's where the custody/processing rules come in.

Hopefully, someone with OR experience can help you more.

[clean record]

I think they would send a picture no matter what - banking on most would just send in the fine.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

No they don't. They feel like they can send you the ticket and hope you pay it without arguing.

I really don't have any experience with OR law, but in CA they do photo tickets all the time. They also send out "snitch tickets". This is a ticket where you are basically (and wrongly) told that if you aren't the person in the picture, you have to snitch on the person who is since it is your car. This is a fishing expedition. There is tons of evidence of abuses with photo tickets.

As I said, I don't really know OR law, but in CA, it isn't real hard to beat a photo ticket. You should research the laws concerning processing of the film, chain of custody, etc. Furthermore, when you go to court, you cannot be "accused" by a machine. You have a constitutional right to face your accuser. So, the person who would have to show up to testify against you would have to have first hand knowlege that he can testify to. That's where the custody/processing rules come in.

Hopefully, someone with OR experience can help you more.

This is municipality specific then. The municipalities I am familiar with actually review the photo prior to sending it...

[clean record]

From what I understand, they review the photo to see if it's the same sex as the registered owner. If claiming innocent, they want you to send a photocopy of your driver's license.

[Hey There]

1-3-07

clean record

Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 810.438 - .439 photo radar can only be used by authorized cities, it is not allowed to stay in the one location for more than four hours a day, cannot be used on controlled access highways and cities must post signs notifying drivers a potential photo enforcement on major routes entering the cities. Additionally, photo radar units must be operated out of a marked police vehicle by trained police officers.

Chapter 634 Oregon Laws 2007

AN ACT

HB 2466

Relating to photo radar; creating new provisions; and amending ORS 810.438 and 810.439.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

SECTION 1. ORS 810.438 is amended to read:

810.438. (1) The following jurisdictions may, at their own
cost, operate photo radar: ( note --deleted former list)
Albany. Beaverton Bend.Eugene. Gladstone. Medford Milwaukie.

Oregon City .Portland.Tigard

(2) A photo radar system operated under this section:

(a) May be used on streets in residential areas or school
zones.

(b) May be used in other areas if the governing body of the
city makes a finding that speeding has had a negative
impact on traffic safety in those areas.

(c) May not be used for more than four hours per day in any
one location.

(d) May not be used on controlled access highways.

(e) May not be used unless a sign is
posted announcing “Traffic Laws Photo Enforced” [that
photo radar is in use]. The sign posted under this
paragraph must be all of the following:

(A) On the street on which the photo radar unit is being used.

(B) Between 100 and 400 yards before the location of the
photo radar unit.

(C) At least two feet above ground level.

(3) A city that operates a photo radar system under this
section shall, once each biennium, conduct a process and
outcome evaluation for the purposes of subsection (4) of
this section that includes:

(a) The effect of the use of the photo radar system on traffic
safety;

(b) The degree of public acceptance of the use of the photo
radar system; and

(c) The process of administration of the use of the photo
radar system.

(4) By March 1 of the year of each regular session of the
Legislative Assembly:

(a) The Department of Transportation shall provide to the
Legislative Assembly an executive summary of the process
and outcome evaluations conducted under subsection (3)
of this section; and

(b) Each city that operates a photo radar system under this
section shall present to the Legislative Assembly the
process and outcome evaluation conducted by the city
under subsection (3) of this section.

NOTE: Due to length of 810.438 and 810.439.
810.439 will be in next post

Best Regards,
Hey There





__________

[Hey There]

1-3-08
clean record

SECTION 2. ORS 810.439 is amended to read:

810.439. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the jurisdictions using photo radar:

(a) A citation for speeding may be issued on the basis of photo radar if the following conditions are met:

(A) The photo radar equipment is operated by a uniformed police officer.

(B) The photo radar equipment is operated out of a marked police vehicle.

(C) An indication of the actual speed of the vehicle is displayed within 150 feet of the location of the photo radar unit.

(D) Signs indicating that speeds are enforced by photo radar are posted, so far as is practicable, on all major routes entering the jurisdiction.

(E) The citation is mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle within six business days of the alleged violation.

(F) The registered owner is given 30 days from the date the citation is mailed to respond to the citation.

(G) The jurisdiction operating photo radar complies with the requirements described in ORS 810.438.

(b) A rebuttable presumption exists that the registered owner of the vehicle was the driver of the vehicle when the citation is issued and delivered as provided in this section.

(c) A person issued a citation under this subsection may respond to the citation by submitting a certificate of innocence or a certificate of nonliability under subsection (3) of this section or may make any other response allowed by law.

(2) A citation issued on the basis of photo radar may be delivered by mail or otherwise to the registered owner of the vehicle or to the driver. The citation may be prepared on a digital medium, and the signature may be electronic in accordance with the provisions of ORS 84.001 to 84.061.

(3)(a) A registered owner of a vehicle may respond by mail to a citation issued under subsection (1) of this section by submitting a certificate of innocence within 30 days from the mailing of the citation swearing or affirming that the owner was not the driver of the vehicle and by providing a photocopy of the owner’s driver license. A jurisdiction that receives a certificate of innocence under this paragraph shall dismiss the citation without requiring a court appearance by the registered owner or any other information from the registered owner other than the swearing or affirmation and the photocopy. The citation may be reissued only once, only to the registered owner and only if the jurisdiction verifies that the registered owner appears to have been the driver at the time of the violation. A registered owner may not submit a certificate of innocence in response to a reissued citation.

(b) If a business or public agency responds to a citation issued under subsection (1) of this section by submitting a certificate of nonliability within 30 days from the mailing of the citation stating that at the time of the alleged speeding violation the vehicle was in the custody and control of an employee or was in the custody and control of a renter or lessee under the terms of a rental agreement or lease, and if the business or public agency provides the driver license number, name and address of the employee, renter or lessee, the citation shall be dismissed with respect to the business or public agency. The citation may then be issued and delivered by mail or otherwise to the employee, renter or lessee identified in the certificate of nonliability.

(4) If the person named as the registered owner of a vehicle in the current records of the Department of Transportation fails to respond to a citation issued under subsection (1) of this section, a default judgment under ORS 153.102 may be entered for failure to appear after notice has been given that the judgment will be entered.

(5) The penalties for and all consequences of a speeding violation initiated by the use of photo radar are the same as for a speeding violation initiated by any other means.

(6) A registered owner, employee, renter or lessee against whom a judgment for failure to appear is entered may move the court to relieve the owner, employee, renter or lessee from the judgment as provided in ORS 153.105 if the failure to appear was due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.

SECTION 3. Sections 4 and 5 of this 2007 Act are added to and made a part of the Oregon Vehicle Code.

These sections are rules for Oregon Highway use which are in the next post.

Best Regards,
Hey There

[JIMinCA]

Wow.... that is amazing!!

(A) The photo radar equipment is operated by a uniformed police officer.

(B) The photo radar equipment is operated out of a marked police vehicle.

If that is the case, then why would the cop need to do a photo ticket??? Why not just pull the offender over and give them a ticket in person? Weird....


But, this should be painfully simple to beat. While these statutes are riddled with possible defenses, note the excerpt below:

(G) The jurisdiction operating photo radar complies with the requirements described in ORS 810.438.

At trial, the prosecution would have the burden of proving compliance with all of the requirements of ORS 810.438 (which is extensive) if the defendant demands it. I can imagine the prosecution will not want to go to this effort for a speeding ticket.

[clean record]

So I should request trial and at trial demand to show compliance of ORS 810.438?

I'm not seeing anything easy about this as I'm finding every case being shot down

[url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=or&vol=A116109&invol=1[/url]

Oregon has been thorough, it appears, in protecting their revenue generator.

If that is the case, then why would the cop need to do a photo ticket??? Why not just pull the offender over and give them a ticket in person? Weird....

It's all about catching the most in the least amount of time. They will even resort to using trickery - displaying the sign across the street - which shows their interest isn't in providing a means for control and safety but for revenue. Oregon has no shame in how low they will go to generate this revenue.

Because we conclude that compliance with ORS 810.438 is not a condition of the issuance of a valid citation under ORS 810.439(1)(a), we need not address the question whether the posting of the sign in this case in fact complied with ORS 810.438. We also do not address whether the requirements of ORS 810.438 may be enforced by some other means than challenging the validity of the issuance of a citation under ORS 810.439.

(5) A registered owner, employee, renter or lessee against whom
a judgment for failure to appear is entered may move the court to
relieve the owner, employee, renter or lessee from the judgment
as provided in ORS 153.105 if the failure to appear was due to
mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.

I suppose after being jailed and car impounded I may have the judgment removed. What if I was out of town for two months or never received the citation?

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by clean record

It's all about catching the most in the least amount of time. They will even resort to using trickery - displaying the sign across the street - which shows their interest isn't in providing a means for control and safety but for revenue. Oregon has no shame in how low they will go to generate this revenue.

Is the sign facing YOUR direction so YOU can read it?

[The Occultist]

OP, just to let you know, moving violations rarely provide any sort of profit. Paychecks for all the officers on the road, maintaining vehicles/equipment, paying the officers overtime pay for their required court dates. No, it's parking violations that generate revenue.

[clean record]

Originally Posted by makesmewannagag

Well those Rascally Rabbits!!!! Whose to know that the speed limit is generally the same on BOTH sides of the street.

So, having the sign on the wrong side of the street somehow tricked you into speeding???

and never mind about all that stuff you found on caselaw. JiminCA can beat any and every ticket. Just ask him. Maybe, if he doesn win yours, he will offer to pay it.

Look, I didn't come here for sarcasm and it's not appreciated. Besides, your sarcasm is way off base and well, stupid. Putting the sign in obscure locations because the law allows it is stooping low. If the city were more inclined to get people to be more aware of their speed, they could make the sign very visible - but no, they are more interested in generating revenue. Like I've said, speeding isn't intentional as far as I'm concerned so your sarcasm doesn't fit. There are a lot of people that do speed and run red lights and I do find it necessary to ticket them - especially red light and street racers.

STATE OF OREGON v. CHRISTINE DAHL

Oregon defines the violation as civil rather than criminal in order to avoid the due process rights you would have under a criminal violation.

OP, just to let you know, moving violations rarely provide any sort of profit.

With photo radar they do - and they write many more tickets than the city of Colberg can do with stops:

citation revenue is coming in at a rate of about $53,000 per month.

[url]http://rgweb.registerguard.com/news/2005/11/30/a1.coburg.1130.p1.php?section=cityregion[/url]

Wisconsin: Police Hassle Speed Trap Samaritan
Police in Madison, Wisconsin threaten to arrest a man for holding a cardboard sign warning of an upcoming speed trap.

Fred ZahnPolice in Madison, Wisconsin threatened jail time to a good samaritan who warned fellow motorists of an upcoming speed trap on Tuesday. Fred Zahn, who owns Renu Auto Body, stood on the sidewalk of Fish Hatchery Road with a handmade cardboard sign reading, "Speed Trap Ahead." Police intervened as soon as they found themselves unable to issue citations, claiming Zahn could not exercise free speech on "city property." Officials said that he could be charged with obstructing a police officer.

"You should have seen how people slowed down when they saw my sign," Zahn told the Wisconsin State Journal. "(The police) say they're out to slow people down, but you can't tell me it's not about the money."

Is the sign facing YOUR direction so YOU can read it?

I never saw a sign. If I did, I would have checked my speed. This is a four lane street that is, for the most part 45 mph but in this one section it's 35.

[tranquility]

OP, just to let you know, moving violations rarely provide any sort of profit. Paychecks for all the officers on the road, maintaining vehicles/equipment, paying the officers overtime pay for their required court dates. No, it's parking violations that generate revenue.

Camera tickets are all about revenue. Safety is always discussed in the council meeting approving the cameras, but it is revenue which puts the jelly in the donut.

[clean record]

I didn't come for the bullsh*t some of you are dishing out. Why don't you mind your own business and let me get my free advice. Don't you have anything better to do? Or does it make you feel superior in your little inferior complex world?