Search

by MojoPages

Share this article:
Print

Investigators: Red-light cameras may issue illegal tickets

Click here for a free download of the latest Adobe Flash Player.

by CHRIS INGALLS / KING 5 News

Posted on February 3, 2010 at 11:16 PM

Updated Wednesday, Feb 3 at 11:16 PM

******

SEATTLE - It's just one little traffic case. But it's calling into question thousands of tickets generated by some of those red-light cameras in Seattle.

Traffic judges have declared the camera set-up illegal at a busy intersection near the University of Washington and they've tossed tickets out, but the city is still ticketing unsuspecting motorists.

NE 45th Street at Union Bay Place NE is not your typical intersection.

"What's unusual is you have cars coming from all directions at you," said Michael Stokes who routinely drives through the intersection.

The five-way intersection has a dizzying configuration of lights and signs and turn lanes. And towering over it all are camera systems on the lookout for red-light runners.

Recently they recorded  video of an eastbound car on NE 45th Street. It clearly shows the car cruising through the intersection after the light turned red. The driver got a costly ticket for $124 in the mail.

But on Monday Seattle traffic judge Francis deVilla dismissed the infraction.

He didn't respond to the KING 5 Investigators' repeated requests for an explanation.

But the City Attorney's Office says it was just informed deVilla ruled that the camera system is illegal at the intersection. The judge apparently based that decision on state law which says cameras are restricted to intersections where two arterial roads meet - your typical four-way stop.

But then, NE 45th Street at Union Bay is a five-way intersection.

The judge may have determined that one extra street means cameras cannot legally be placed here.

Gareth Kenee is one of more than 9,000 drivers that city records show got a ticket there. Like many, he didn't have time to go to court to challenge it.

"Yeah, I just paid it," Kenee said.

At $124 a ticket, this could be potentially be a million-dollar intersection for the city since it installed cameras there a year and a half ago.

We've learned legal questions were raised months ago in a lawsuit now being heard in federal court.

And  the City Attorney's Office acknowledges that Seattle traffic judge Adam Eisenberg dismissed at least one ticket at the same intersection.

So why does the city continue to issue tickets and fines at a controversial intersection?

The City Attorney's Office believes the intersection is legal and says it will likely fight all these challenges.

Meantime, the city continues to write an average of 16 tickets a day at that one intersection.

Share this article:
Print

To add a comment, please register or login.

Leave your comment
1000 characters remaining

Submit

We welcome your comments on this story's topic. Off-topic comments, personal attacks, and inappropriate language may be flagged and removed, and comment privileges blocked, per our Terms of Service. Thanks for keeping the comments space respectful.

Privacy Policy

HTML is not allowed.

charles_b_guy285 said on February 3, 2010 at 11:47 PM

My understanding is that the price of a ticket cannot be more than a parking ticket. What parking ticket is $124? One that was created to skirt the law! Hope these cameras go down in Flames!

blankingout said on February 3, 2010 at 11:48 PM

I say taken all down!

blankingout said on February 3, 2010 at 11:49 PM

That's take *them all down!

oranje said on February 4, 2010 at 12:07 AM

Fines must be based on income. $124 may a lot for a teacher, but peanuts for a high tech executive.

jackwong said on February 4, 2010 at 12:16 AM

This is NOT the time to take away this camera, in a time of massive deficits and cutting of social programs for the highly at-risk is at stake. I hope the lawyers do the right thing and lay off of the city.

thunderbird3 said on February 4, 2010 at 12:27 AM

people should be fine for running a red light it doesnt matter where it occurs, specially in kent wa! everybody runs red lights.

rex1959 said on February 4, 2010 at 12:40 AM

If everyone stopped running red lights, then the cameras would come down ... DUHHH.

techwillfail said on February 4, 2010 at 1:02 AM

I got a ticket from this intersection, all I saw was the flash from the cameras not even the light was visible to me... That intersection is pure chaos and I drive all over the US.

wittyname said on February 4, 2010 at 1:49 AM

How much money did the city blow putting them up in the first place? At any rate, a Judge is higher up the totem pole than a city attorney so feel free to blow that intersection on a red late all you want. But be aware, there will most likely be a patrol car hanging out there looking for you and the ticket a cop writes you will stick.

logic14 said on February 4, 2010 at 4:41 AM

fines should be based on income like many European countries do. If you make unber 50K it would be $50, or 51K to 75K $100, 76K to $100K $150, 101K to 150K $250, over 160K $400, over 250K $800 etc.

noskills said on February 4, 2010 at 7:17 AM

In theory I like the red light cameras but I dislike them in practice for 2 reasons. 1. I see them go off all the time when someone hasn't ran a red light. 2. Private companies own and operate most of those red light cameras.

fastnlight said on February 4, 2010 at 7:21 AM

The Cities all over the puget sound are reaping the cash from these "safety" devices. It's all about the money for both the company who pushes them and the cities that say yes to installation. Did you know that they are placed based on traffic and profit potential and not based on actual safety factors! Don't ever pay a ticket from one of these automated enforcements (they have no actual recourse if you deny the incident) and we will see them all go away. Spread the world.

fastnlight said on February 4, 2010 at 7:26 AM

The cities don't pay a cent for installation. The company does a site survey for profit potential, performs the install and operation for no upfront fee, then takes the first 6-10 k earned each month from the camera right off the top. You can see why cities always support these devices becuase it is pure bonus income for them with very limited additional cost (enforcement). Are you suprised the number of them seemed to explode during a time of massive budget cuts? They will get there money anyway possible even if that means bending some rule and scalping the public from another direction.

masterblaster said on February 4, 2010 at 8:53 AM

I hate the surveillance society but the sheepeople are bound and determined to have it. I don't run red lights and I don't commit crimes so by the sheepeoples reasoning I should not care about being watched and monitored. The criticism of people like me comes from liberals and conservatives. Welcome to te NewSSR. But, I have an idea for the red light surveillance lovers. If the purpose of them is safety and not revenue enhancement as you assert then the money collected from fines should be used to lower the price of car tabs for those of us who don't get tickets.

wawolf said on February 4, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Red light cameras are highly imperfect. I was turning right when a car came flying up to make a left turn. So I stopped as the light turned and the red light camera went off because I had stopped past the line. I then continued with my right turn when it was safe to do so. I didn't run a red light, but the camera still went off because I was over the line.

dede1978 said on February 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM

I'm sorry, but I think the red light cameras should stay. And those who clearly run red lights should be ticketed and pay the fine. I go through those red light camera intersections all the time and have never gotten a ticket. Maybe if those who do get the tickets start paying attention it will no longer be an issue. So stop your nagging, pay your ticket and stop running red lights.

dede1978 said on February 4, 2010 at 10:14 AM

wawolf, did you get a ticket? No. I know a Lynnwood police officer and he told me they review the photos so tickets like that are not issued. They make sure the tickets that they issue will stand up in court. I had the same thing happen to me too, I never got a ticket either.

stryker said on February 4, 2010 at 10:18 AM

Stop running red lights and stop whining ya big babies.

sofedup said on February 4, 2010 at 11:05 AM

More power to those willing to push back against this OBVIOUS abuse of Legislative intent. Either municipalities abide by the intent of statutory authority or no-one will.

graham said on February 4, 2010 at 12:02 PM

All citys are after is MONEY

kameha said on February 4, 2010 at 12:33 PM

well dede, maybe you didn't get a ticket because you know a cop. I did get a ticket for turning right after I stopped and checked for cars and the judge wouldn't toss it because Fife City has no other means of income.

streetstock said on February 4, 2010 at 1:13 PM

After seeing your report and stating that the law says that it needs to be at an intersection some one should investigate the camera set up in tacoma on river road near EQ casino its not at a light and they use it to get speeders. Which i think is total illegal. Also some cities charge more then $124 a ticket.

dodoo said on February 4, 2010 at 1:41 PM

I think every intersection everywhere ought to have camera's. Running red light's is illegal and is the number one cause for intersection accidents. Keep me safe.

dede1978 said on February 4, 2010 at 2:47 PM

kameha, My photo was taken at an intersection in Seattle, and the cop I know is in Lynnwood, can't speak for Fife. But I still think the cameras should stay, and not as a source of income. I see people run red lights all the time, and it is illegal and they deserve tickets. Everyone complains that cops should be doing more important things. Red light cameras would be a means of keeping them on more important matters, rather than pulling over the idiot who doesn't understand a yellow light means the light is going to turn red and they should slow so they can stop. Run a red light, you deserve a ticket. As for cameras being used for speeders, go for it. Again, my understanding of the cameras catching speeders is for school zones. And I'm sorry, but when my kids were in school, I didn't want people speeding around them. How many times do we have to hear about kids getting hit in school zones because someone was speeding and not paying attention.

dede1978 said on February 4, 2010 at 2:53 PM

As for the intersection in question in the above article. If they are truly writing 16 tickets average daily, maybe they should and it is an illegal setup. Maybe they should remove the cameras and place a couple officers in the intersection to catch those red light runners. I think the only people who are truly bothered by these cameras are those who don't like getting caught.

jamey said on February 4, 2010 at 4:50 PM

If people stop running red lights, then the city will just shorten the yellow lights. This is about the MONEY, not safety. This is like crack to city administrators. Once you get a taste of the Revenue, you want more, more, more. Just like the drug forfeiture laws of the '80's.

paranoid2 said on February 4, 2010 at 7:53 PM

If the cameras are not illegal then why did they set the orange caution light to change immediatly. I suggest you find a non camera light and time the caution light, the find a camera mounted on and do the same. Results are surprising. Oh yes why is the camera pointed down at the rear of the car after you make a left turn?

applebite80 said on February 5, 2010 at 12:30 AM

I'm against these cameras and I have never gotten a red light ticket. There is NO safety benefit. According to a study done in Virginia these cameras INCREASED accidents there. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp I don't understand how ANYONE can defend these cameras. What kind of person is willing to have the government watch you at all times to keep you from stepping out of line? That's not the kind of America I want to live in.

crownedforever said on February 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM

My son was in the hospital for 2 weeks and 2 of his visitors received these tickets. Both complained they had no time to get through the intersection before it became a red light. I think the camera should be removed and everyone who received a ticket should be refunded.

livinlavida said on February 10, 2010 at 10:46 AM

9000 tickets at $124 a piece = $1,116,000! It probably cost that much to install the cameras in the first place and now our tax dollars get to pay for a court case on top of it! These red light cameras need to go, and now! In my opinion they are all illegal. If you want to catch someone running a red light, hire a cop, buy him a car and let him sit there and use some simple common sense and "human judgement" to ticket people. Maybe this would also help the unemployment rate in our state.

mellybelly323 said on February 18, 2010 at 5:54 PM

I'm torn over the camera issue. I myself have gotten a red light ticket. However, the only reason I got the ticket is because the yellow light lasted all of a second and a half - and the darn thing turned yellow just as I entered the intersection. I paid my ticket, rather than fight it, just because it seemed easier. But I am convinced that they shorten the caution light in order to "catch" more red light runners. As for these tickets being reviewed before they go out - at 16 tickets a day just for ONE intersection - who the heck are we paying to review the thousands of tickets that must happen each week per city?