Photo Ticket judgements to be reported to MVD? Could be soon.

[Junior]

State Bill 1291 passed in committee today 4-2, "[requiring] the court to forward to the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) records related to state photo enforcement convictions or judgments and allows MVD to consider the violation when determining whether to suspend or revoke a person’s driver license. "

When the photo radar outfits were first allowed by law, the MVD was explicitly prohibited from having access to any data about any individual's photo radar tickets, whether entered into judgment or not.

The Trucking industry, and another I missed, have been lobbying the State legislature to create this bill negating that exclusion, because they want to have access to that information for the hiring process.

After passing in committee today, the Bill has been submitted to the State Senate for a vote.

Proposed Amendment:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/1r/bills/sb1291p.pdf

Summary/Fact Sheet:
http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument....91pshs.doc.htm

Main Information Page for SB1291:
http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBil....x=7&image.y=6

[FactoryD]

/me is digging up my representatives contact info.

You wouldn't happen to have those handy would you, Mikey?

[Junior]

You're in District 15 because of the way the map's drawn (check this out), so that's Ken Cheuvront (hey, we might know his brother )

Ken Cheuvront

[rwalshphoto]

Boooooooooooooo

[glhs837]

Wow, nasty next step. IF this hasnt been reported thenewspaper.com, it should be.

[Vipere]

Think it's time to give the news channels a call.

[CHARGERSHED]

maybe we should give the ACLU a call...although, that's kind of like asking satan to temp people into going to church....

[Vipere]

You ready for this one... The news channel will not report on this change until it has been passed. WTF!!! By then it's too F'in late! Another reason I hate the media.... They only report on what they want you to hear.

[Green_Manalishi]

Interesting.

The photo tickets I have seen in Texas were for a violation of a city ordinance, not for violating a traffic law.

One is civil, the other criminal.

Are the ones in AZ criminal complaints? If so, the burden of proof is much higher, and simply a picture of a vehicle would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction of an individual.

[joeb1]

Interesting.

The photo tickets I have seen in Texas were for a violation of a city ordinance, not for violating a traffic law.

One is civil, the other criminal.

Are the ones in AZ criminal complaints? If so, the burden of proof is much higher, and simply a picture of a vehicle would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction of an individual.

Don't forget. This is the wild west.
Get a rope, hang 'em, we'll have a trial later.

Kangaroo court system is the rule.

[Junior]

Interesting.

The photo tickets I have seen in Texas were for a violation of a city ordinance, not for violating a traffic law.

One is civil, the other criminal.

Are the ones in AZ criminal complaints? If so, the burden of proof is much higher, and simply a picture of a vehicle would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction of an individual.

Generally, they're civil traffic. I'm not positive where the dividing line between them is - perhaps 20 over the limit is where it becomes criminal? I'm not sure.

[Green_Manalishi]

Generally, they're civil traffic. I'm not positive where the dividing line between them is - perhaps 20 over the limit is where it becomes criminal? I'm not sure.

The letter I saw here said that the registered owner of a vehicle is responsible for any violation of a city ordinance. City ordinances are civil matters. They don't have the same burden of proof as criminal laws.

Additionally, the civil judgments don't carry the same penalty as a criminal conviction. If you don't pay a fine related to a city ordinance, administrative penalties can be ordered, such as refusal to allow registration of a vehicle registered in the county of the violation.

I don't know how they can apply the civil judgment in the same manner as a criminal conviction to someone's driving record. After all, most of the notices aren't certified mail to begin with, so how can they prove notice was received?

[Junior]

I did hear today that there's a different bill before the legislature to NOT renew the current Redflex contract when it expires next year, but I haven't dug that one up yet.

[Fast56k]

I did hear today that there's a different bill before the legislature to NOT renew the current Redflex contract when it expires next year, but I haven't dug that one up yet.

I think it is from Sam Crump. I saw the lobbyist from Redflex trying to convince Crump to reconsider his bill. I was with my friend who is also in the state legislature at a local dive that most of the representatives frequent for lunch. Crump and the lobbyist were in line behind us. I said something like how odd is this to the both of them. Contact your state rep. and state senator. It is our gov't, not theirs.

C.

[HEMIDON]

In DC, Maryland and Virginia the photo violation systems take a picture of the back of the vehicle only. To assess a penalty to someones driving record they would need to prove who was driving the vehicle. I cannot see them implement any penalties to a driver unless they could photo the front showing who was behind the wheel. In DC they use both traffic light cameras and speed cameras in hundreds of places. In Maryland there are quite a few traffic light cameras but speed cameras are mostly in 25 MPH school zones.

As far as the fines, they double if not paid in 30 days and the vehicle registration is suspended if not paid after 90 days of the violation