Posted on 02/06/2017 9:14:35 PM PST by nickcarraway
Photo-enforcement firm Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. announced on Monday that it will pay $20 million to the city of Chicago to settle its high-profile bribery scandal.
The Glendale, Arizona-based firm released details of its settlement agreement on the same day that its former CEO, Karen Finley of Cave Creek, is scheduled to report to prison.
Finley was sentenced in November to 30 months in federal prison and pay $2 million in restitution for conspiracy to commit bribery in Illinois and Ohio.
She was supposed to report to the U.S. Marshal's Office in Phoenix on January 3, but that was since changed: Court records show she's expected to report today to the Victorville, California, medium-security facility.
Redflex Traffic Systems, the American division of Redflex of Australia, provides photo enforcement for dozens of cities in the United States.
Its Arizona clients include Phoenix, Paradise Valley, and El Mirage in Arizona.
The company's reputation took on heavy damage starting in 2012, when an investigation by the Chicago Tribune exposed the extensive bribery scheme.
Company officials, including Finley, coordinated payments to government insiders, who would then ensure Redflex secured its lucrative contracts.
Finley helped set up former Chicago transportation official John Bills with golf games in Arizona and use of a condominium in Gilbert, among other bribes.
Bills was sentenced to 10 years in prison in August.
Now, with its former CEO headed to prison, the settlement with Chicago, and a brand-new logo, Redflex is ready to move on.
"Today marks a new beginning for Redflex," Michael Finn, the company's president and CEO, said in a written statement. "Over the last four years, we took the actions every responsible company would have chosen and enhanced our compliance management, training and oversight functions."
Redflex emerged from its problems with a "single-minded focus" to keep up
(Excerpt) Read more at phoenixnewtimes.com ...
Speed and Red Light cameras. Trump needs to make them illegal at the federal level.
It’s a constitutional thing and it needs to be address.
If these don’t go against liberty, I dont know what does.
It’s a constitutional thing and it needs to be address.
If these don’t go against liberty, I don't know what does.
Good point. Any defendant has the Right to confront and cross examine any and all witnesses, and in the absence of that Right (no witness), the case should be dismissed.
Machines make excellent servants, but they shouldn't, in and of themselves, be able to attach civil or criminal guilt to an individual. It's an unambiguous violation of Due Process.
At least in the case of a police using a radar gun to issue speeding tickets, there is an actual witness who is operating the equipment—someone whom you can subsequently question during the course of any legal proceeding...
The only reason a company doing business in Cook County gets busted for bribery... is because they forgot to grease the right palms, or they greased the wrong palms.
Well stated.
If a criminal goes into a 7/11 and blows away the clerk and it’s caught on the security camera, that video can’t be used against the killer?
She shoulda got 10 years like the govt man received. Maybe more.
Ah to be a woman and get lighter sentences because you can cry and guys eat that weepy sh1t right up.
OK. They are paying $20million in bribe money to Chicago for paying bribe money to Chicago ?
That 20 million will be disappeared into DNC before the ink on check is dry
Good point.
In a murder case, however, that probably wouldn't be sufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Video footage could be used as evidence that the crime was committed by the accused, but it would typically be accompanied by additional evidence.
Most murder cases I'm aware of involve one or more witnesses, whether they be eyewitnesses to the crime, or at least expert witnesses that testify about forensic evidence, video evidence, etc., and the defense has the opportunity to cross examine all such witnesses.
Again, with the red light camera, it's just the human vs. the machine, with no witnesses of any kind available to directly examine or cross-examine. It just doesn't seem proper to me.
This is probably the reason that many (most? all?) red-light camera cases get dismissed when the defendant actually seeks redress in court by pleading "not guilty". The powers that be rely on the fact that most people simply don't want to go through the hassle of fighting a traffic case—even one they would likely win!
Sounds like government or police officials in numerous cities need to be behind bars.
In the UK they’re called Gatsos and they are “set alight” by placing a “tyre” around the head soaked in gasoline. That’s what should be done to these abominations designed to fleece the motoring public.
“This is probably the reason that many (most? all?) red-light camera cases get dismissed when the defendant actually seeks redress in court by pleading “not guilty”. The powers that be rely on the fact that most people simply don’t want to go through the hassle of fighting a traffic case—even one they would likely win! “
I don’t know if it’s still the case, but there was a traffic judge in San Jose, CA who dismissed any photo radar citation for the simple reason that is was not issued by a cop and signed by the driver at the time the violation occurred.
Who wrote this, the Department of Redundancy Department? Or is that as opposed to their Arizona clients in Delaware and New Jersey?
I always enjoy the fine work of the Department of Redundancy Department who always does fine work I always enjoy!
(good catch)
Totally agree. I researched the rec light and speeding cameras in-depth many years ago and put out a white paper on my findings. It was all about the money at every level. It had absolutely nothing to do with safety. The companies even hired their own PR firms to fool the masses into believing it would "save the children" and was a good thing to produce revenue for the municipalities as they stuffed the politician's pockets and city council members pockets. The cameras are a totalitarian symbol of government to The pPeople and should be abhorred and removed.
Maybe “El Mirage in Arizona” is its name.
The concept of red light cameras SUCK!
They got thrown out of Houston a couple years ago.
There are plenty of good arguments against using traffic cameras to enforce motor vehicle laws, but this isn't one of them. Using the logic you've presented here, security camera footage of a crime would be inadmissible in court.
That is very typical in any case involving a public official in my line of work. The public official is supposed to know the law and the rules of ethical conduct better than anyone.
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.