Business owner casts reasonable doubt on accuracy of speed cameras, gets tickets tossed

Five times and counting before three different judges, the Prince George’s County business owner has used a computer and a calculation to cast reasonable doubt on the reliability of the soulless traffic enforcers.

After a judge threw out two of his tickets Wednesday, Mr. Foreman said he is confident he has exposed systemic inaccuracies in the systems that generate millions of dollars a year for town, city and county governments.

He wasn’t the only one to employ the defense Wednesday. Two other men were found not guilty of speeding offenses before a Hyattsville District judge during the same court session using the same technique.

“You’ve produced an elegant defense and I’m sufficiently doubtful,” Judge Mark T. O’Brien said to William Adams, after hearing evidence that his Subaru was traveling below the 35-mph limit - and not 50 mph as the ticket indicated.

Mr. Foreman, examined dozens of citation photos of his company’s trucks that were issued along a camera-monitored stretch of Indian Head Highway his employees frequently travel.

The camera company, Optotraffic, uses a sensor that detects any vehicle exceeding the speed limit by 12 or more mph, then takes two photos of it for identification purposes. The photos are mailed to violators, along with a $40 ticket.

For each ticket, Mr. Foreman digitally superimposed the two photos - taken 0.363 seconds apart from a stationary point, according to an Optotraffic time stamp - creating a single photo with two images of the vehicle.

Using the vehicle’s length as a frame of reference, Mr. Foreman then measured its distance traveled in the elapsed time, allowing him to calculate the vehicle’s speed. In every case, he said, the vehicle was not traveling fast enough to get a ticket.

Here’s the FOIA request ... just getting something like this delivered to them really makes their day .. Please use it as a guideline ,, make life hell for these pirates..

*****************************

Administrator / records custodian
Apopka Red Light Camera Safety Program

I am requesting the following information regarding the program in accordance with the FFOIA ( FS 119.01 ) …

1.) These QUESTIONS and INQUIRIES are directed toward all information known or available to the City of Apopka , the administrator and records custodian for the “Apopka Red Light Camera Safety Program” , the related parties that supply the cameras and electronics necessary for the system to operate and the Police officers that oversee and verify infractions.
2.) Each request is to be deemed a continuing one. If, after serving an answer you obtain or become aware of any further information pertaining to that request, you are requested to serve a supplemental answer setting forth such information.

DEFINITIONS

3.) “DOCUMENT” is synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of this term in FEDERAL RULE of CIVIL PROCEDURE 34(a) and includes computer records in any format. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term. The term “DOCUMENT” also includes any “tangible things” as that term is used in Rule 34(a).
4.) “PARTIES” . The term, as well as the parties full or abbreviated name or a pronoun referring to a party, means the party and where applicable , (his/her/it’s) agents, representatives, officers, directors, employees, partners, corporate parent(s) , subsidiaries, or affiliates.
5.) “IDENTIFY” (document) When referring to a document, “identify” means to give, to the extent known, the following information: (1) the type of document ; (2) the general subject matter of the document ; (3) the date of the document ; (4) the authors, address, and recipients of the document ; (5) the location of the document ; (6) the identity of the person who has custody of the document ; and (7) whether the document has been destroyed, and if so , (8) the date of it’s destruction , the reason for it’s destruction and the identity of the person who destroyed it.
6.) “RELATING” The term “relating” means concerning, referring, describing, evidencing, or constituting, directly or indirectly.
7.) “ANY” The term “any” should be understood in either it’s most or it’s least inclusive sense as necessary to bring within the scope of the discovery request all reasons that might otherwise be construed to be outside of it’s scope.

INQUIRIES

1.) I am requesting information pertaining to any studies of vehicle accident and injury patterns in Apopka at the intersections where this program has been implemented, before and after implementing the program be brought forward, city code 78-82 states that this is the prime motivator for the implementation of the program.
2.) I am requesting information on any and all designated “traffic control infraction officer(s)” as to their qualifications and the supporting documents from the beginning of the program to the present.
3.) I am requesting information on the methodology used by the camera system to determine when an infraction has occurred , how the system determines if a vehicle has stopped (a detailed overview or flowchart of the decisions made by the video analysis program). Also what is the name of the program used and what version numbers have been in use in the Apopka cameras.
4.) Can you please direct me to a Florida case where this particular program and it’s various versions have been given judicial notice.
5.) I am requesting the methodology and logs of tests performed on the traffic control cameras by the traffic control infraction officer as outlined in 78-87.
6.) I am requesting in an electronically readable format all communications between the camera vendor and the city from the time of first contact pertaining to revenues , expected revenues and contract terms and all documents regarding distribution of proceeds from the program.
7.) I am requesting in an electronically readable format all communications with camera vendors that did not win the contract and any proposals they might have submitted.
8.) I am requesting that the city provide engineering data pertaining to the timing of all lights at which cameras have been installed and any maintenance or alterations to such timing from a time not less than one year prior to the cameras installation.
9.) I am requesting information as to any maintenance performed on the camera systems by the vendor ATS and others , and how those systems interact with the prior existing traffic light control system.
10.) I am requesting in electronic format ( on CD or DVD ) a spreadsheet detailing the intersection, the offense, the vehicle information , license plate number , DMV info regarding the registration of the license plate , whether an offense was determined to have actually occurred by the traffic control infraction officer , if a fine was levied , the amount of the fine, if a hearing was requested , the outcome of the hearing and if the fine was paid.
11.) I am requesting information as to the increase in fines from the code 78-92 mandated $125 , to the new higher fines, including any communication with the camera supplier.
12.) I am requesting information as to how infractions are handled with regards to license plate information where ownership information is not forthcoming from DMV/HSMV .
13.) I am requesting information as to the cost of the program , the revenues collected and the compliance rates in regards to collections.

Thank You for your cooperation in this matter

Brian F. Tracy

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.