Seeing Red Over Red-Light Cameras: A New Jersey doctor fights City Hall

By Dr. Michael Ehrenreich, MD

It takes quite a bit to get me outraged. I am a busy dermatologist in  Millburn, NJ, tending to the rashes and wrinkles of my community. I don’t  write Op-Ed pieces or spend my weekends in political protest. When Thomas Jefferson wrote that “a little  rebellion now and then is a good thing,” he was not envisioning  me.

It all started with a traffic ticket, received in the mail, featuring a  series of photographs showing a blue Chevy Traverse running a red light in  Springfield, NJ, along with a link to  a video. Upon review, there is no  doubt that the car is mine, but there is also no doubt that at the time of  the incident I was in my office seeing patients.

I figured that it would be a simple matter to plead Not Guilty. After all, if I was not the driver of the vehicle, then how could I possibly be guilty?  Since the photographs and  video do not identify an individual but only  a vehicle, it seemed impossible that the state could make a case.

In fact, I was stunned to learn that in New Jersey if your car is caught on a traffic camera running a red light that there is so-called strict liability. This means that if it is your car then you are liable, even if you testify that you were not the operator of the vehicle and even if the State cannot prove that you were.

That’s where my outrage kicks in. I am not a lawyer. I am not versed in  constitutional law. But the situation felt wrong. I pleaded Not Guilty—if  the State has a case, I figured, let them make it. I started researching  New Jersey’s red light camera program in preparation for my day in court.  Not surprisingly, I discovered that there’s money at stake. Quite a bit of  it.

The red light cameras are installed and operated by a private  Australian-based company, Redflex, under a New Jersey Statute crafted specifically for this purpose. Redflex makes a ton of money doing this.  For the 12 months ended June 2013, Redflex generated worldwide revenues of  approximately $130 million, two-thirds from “fee for service” payments. In other words, Redflex makes money when tickets are issued. It’s a pretty good bet that the cash starved municipalities utilizing Redflex’s system share in the windfall.

With this much money at stake, it was not surprising to find that the same  Redflex was the subject of a 2010 whistleblower complaint in Chicago  alleging bribery of city officials by Redflex and its consultants.  According to Redflex’s 2013 annual report, “The arrangement between the City Program Manager, the Consultant, and Redflex will likely be considered  bribery by the authorities.”

My outrage grew. Under the pretense of improving citizen safety at red  lights, municipalities have outsourced enforcement to a for-profit firm  that reaps rewards from  each ticket! Oh…and that for-profit firm pays bribes too.

With my firm belief that my right to due process of law had somehow been  violated, I showed up for my court date in Springfield municipal court. I was seated on the left side of the courtroom, along with half a dozen  other citizens appearing for red light traffic tickets. I introduced myself  to the group and explained that I am a busy doctor, losing a  half day’s  income to register my protest. I explained that if everyone pleaded Not  Guilty and forced the State to make a case then the system would seize up.  Red light cameras  would stop being profitable. If they were not  profitable, the chorus of claims that they enhance intersection safety  would suddenly quiet.

One by one, defendants were called from the room by an officer and escorted  to a small room with a video monitor to review the footage of their vehicle  at the intersection. It  was explained that they will absolutely,  positively lose this case and in that event will be responsible for court  costs as well as the $85 ticket. Not one person returns to  the  courtroom to plead Not Guilty. They pay their fine and go, leaving  me waiting alone on the red light side of the courtroom.

When it is my turn, the Judge is quite polite, making a point of referring to  me as “Doctor.” He too explains the law in such a way that it seems a  certainty that I will lose. But I proceed and demand a trial. The Judge remains cordial and allows me ample time to make my case—then with no  hesitation enters a guilty verdict. This is as expected, and I now begin  the process of muddling through an appeals process, learning the procedures  and deadlines of the Union County Superior Court.

My arguments are mostly legal. The red light camera statute is illegal and  violates the 5th and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.  Liability is assigned solely based on the identification of a vehicle, but  not its driver. This scheme violates the fundamental concept of fairness in  that it criminally punishes an individual for an action without requiring  that the individual actually commit any act. Nothing can be more abhorrent  to our legal tradition. If due process means anything, it must mean, at the  very least, that the government may not punish someone for an act that he  or she did not commit.

I also argue that New Jersey Title 39-4-8.15 violates the rules of evidence  and the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. In this case, a police officer testified regarding the Redflex system. However, nobody from  Redflex testified as to the origination or veracity of the video. The testimony by the police officer regarding the Redflex video, without  corroboration, is hearsay.

The Superior Court Judge is also quite accommodating, and I am given an  opportunity to grandstand in my defense of the constitution. Shortly  thereafter, the Judge issues a 10 page written opinion. I lose again. I am  not surprised. Based on the Judge’s ruling, and the citation of an Appellate court case, State v Melsky, I decide against pursuing additional  appeals.

Although it may seem that I have had my day in court, there remains the fact  that I have been found guilty as the owner of a vehicle for its operation,  despite the fact that it can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I  was not the driver. The State hides behind the definition of this sort of  infraction as “quasi-criminal.” Inasmuch as no motor vehicle points are  involved, it is claimed that the Confrontation Clause does not apply. The  red light camera statute was in fact specifically crafted to dodge this  constitutional issue.

Back to Thomas Jefferson. He wrote that “Should things go wrong at any time,  the people will set them to rights by the peaceable exercise of their  elective rights.” I hope that this proves the case in New Jersey as it has  in other municipalities — Globe, AZ and Hayward, CA city councils voted to  give Redflex the boot. Many other cities have similarly dismantled their  red light camera enforcement programs.

If you oppose red light cameras in your town, let your city council members  know that this will be an issue in the next election. Let your assembly  members and senators know  that you expect them to work in Trenton to  dismantle the red light camera statute. If you receive a red light camera  ticket make your protest heard. Show up in court and plead Not  Guilty.  Make the State earn its $85.

Michael Ehrenreich, MD, is the founder of SOMA  Skin & Laser and the inventor of the Zigo,  which is the coolest bike ever.

This column was first published on PolitickerNJ.

Posted: October 16th, 2013 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Red Light Cameras | Tags: Dr. Michael Ehrenreich, Red Light Camera Program, Red Light Cameras | 1 Comment »

• Tweet

---