Adobe Acrobat Reader
version 5 or later is required to view .pdf files
Would Colorado really dream of employing robotic apprehension of its truly dangerous citizenry?
Oh yeah, before the cameras were installed, Colorado enacted automated traffic
enforcement laws. Then dispute arose over who gets to regulate this marvelous system of potential revenue and bad guy gotcha. The cities of Commerce City, Westminster, Fort Collins, and Colorado Springs (cities), each home-rule municipalities under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution, challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of section 42-4-110.5 and section 42-3-112(14) regulating the use in Colorado of automated vehicle identification systems, popularly known as photo radar and photo red light. City of Commerce City v. State, 40 P.3d 1273 (Colo. 2002) The cities argued that certain provisions of section [7] 42-4-110.5 and section 42-3-112(14) unconstitutionally infringe on their home-rule powers because Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado Constitution unambiguously reserves to the Cities the power to enforce local traffic ordinances and operate municipal courts. The Cities did not argue that all of the restrictions placed on home-rule cities by the state legislation violate their home-rule powers, rather they challenged the following: (1) the ninety day service provision for traffic violations detected by AVIS[fn3]; (2) the requirement that an entity using AVIS post a sign in a conspicuous place before each area in which AVIS are used notifying the public of their use[fn4]; (3) the provision that an entity using AVIS mail warnings to first-time violators who have been identified by automated systems if the drivers were detected speeding at a rate less than ten miles over a reasonable speed limit[fn5]; (4) the provision establishing a forty-dollar maximum fine for speeding violations detected by AVIS[fn6]; (5) the provision establishing an eighty-dollar maximum fine for AVIS-detected speeding violations in school zones[fn7]; (6) the provision establishing a seventy-five dollar maximum penalty for red light violations detected by AVIS[fn8]; (7) the provision limiting the method by which an entity using automated systems may contract with AVIS vendors and manufacturers for the use or acquisition of AVIS equipment[fn9]; and (8) the prohibition against access to state records — which are needed to determine the identity and address of the registered owner of a motor vehicle involved The Supreme Court again recognized that advances in technology, which have significantly changed the nature of the enforcement of traffic laws, increased the need for uniformity of AVIS regulation. In fact, the use of automated systems for traffic control represents such a considerable shift in traffic enforcement that these systems alter Colorado citizens' basic expectations about how they will be ticketed for traffic violations. Before the use of automated systems, drivers who violated traffic laws expected to be stopped and issued a citation at the time of the violation or immediately following it. This served the important purpose of notifying the driver of an alleged violation. In contrast, when cited by an automated system, drivers will not be on immediate notice of an alleged violation. Thus, this new technology significantly alters Colorado drivers' expectations about how traffic violations will be enforced against them. Accordingly, the state has an interest in providing Colorado drivers with uniform AVIS regulations. As of September 8, 2008 the City of Colorado Springs does not have the technical capability for automated traffic enforcement.
Colorado Springs has installed
small tubular circular cameras at many intersections. January 15, 2003 in
attorney case no. 02-1021 counsel was advised by City Traffic Operations Division
as follows regarding intersection cameras:
On September 8, 2008 counsel again sought traffic evidence from the city agency
responsible for city wide traffic traffic cameras.
From defense counsel perspective, recording of traffic cam data would be a
double edge sword. On the one hand, it could provide government with
evidence of criminal activity. Conversely, it could also provide defense
counsel with evidence regarding lack of reasonable suspicion for initial
contact, accident fault and could verify facts which support theory of defense.
The issue is moot - no such evidence exists as of September 8, 2008.
I understand Boston has installed cameras in the downtown area to monitor crime. I also understand similar measures have been taken in some Great Britain towns which employ face recognition software. The cameras are used to monitor persons walking down the street and apprehend those wanted by the law. This naturally raises serious questions of public security vs. individual freedom and privacy. Whether images and subsequent tickets will occur in the future from the I-25 and intersection cam is a question of technology and city / state policy. Regarding who gets to control apprehension of our unsuspecting citizens by remote control, our fair city contested the state laws enacted by those who possess great (infinite?) wisdom and regulate God's country. City of Commerce City v. State, supra. Draw your own conclusions about city and state policy. As the song goes: I fought the law, and the law won.
What's next - close your
curtains to avoid "Peeping Tom" government cameras in our
neighborhoods?
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
