Police Objecting to Tickets From Red-Light Cameras

caffiend666 writes "According to a Dallas Morning News article, any 'Dallas police officer in a marked squad car who is captured on the city's cameras running a red light will have to pay the $75 fine if the incident doesn't comply with state law ... Many police officers are angry about the proposed policy. The prevailing belief among officers has been that they can run red lights as they see fit.' Is this a case for or against governments relying on un-biased automated systems? Or, should anyone be able to control who is recorded on camera and who is held accountable?"

Well, within reason? Sure.

[Coopjust]

I think that cops SHOULD be held accountable for running a red light if they're on patrol, or just driving back to the precinct. The upholders of the law should be held to the law as well.

That said, there are numerous acceptable reasons for a cop to run a red light. A few I can think of off the top of my head...
-An officer is on his way to stop or going to the scene of a 911 call.
-A suspect car runs a red light as well, and in order to continue, pursuit, the cop must also run the red light.

At this point, technology is still in earlier stages, but...
-You could make a filter with police car license plates, and forward them to the appropriate precinct.
-If not possible, human verification and forwarding.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Jake73]

Police, fire trucks, and ambulances are all legal to run red lights under the condition that they run their lights and/or siren to indicate their intent. In fact, I've seen officers on many occasions run their lights JUST to proceed through an intersection, then turn them off.

The executive is not above the law, but certain accomodations are reasonably made.

Camerals not allowed in Minnesota

[Thunderstruck]

Minnesota's highest court recently struck down the use of these cameras, as practiced in the Twin Cities, because the ticket automatically charged the owner of the car, without concern for whether they were actually driving or not when the picture was taken.

Red Light Cameras [thenewspaper.com]

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[technothrasher]

Police, fire trucks, and ambulances are all legal to run red lights under the condition that they run their lights and/or siren to indicate their intent.

At least here in Massachusetts, this is true only if they are responding to an emergency and they are on duty. If they do it for any other reason, it's illegal. Link [mass.gov]

Why is this an issue?

[quanticle]

In my city (Minneapolis), all of the traffic lights have sensors on them that warn other motorists when emergency vehicles are approaching. These sensors are wired to the lights and sirens of the vehicle, so that they get priority when approaching intersections. How hard is it to tie these sensors to the red-light cameras so that they're disabled while the emergency vehicle has to go through the intersection?

On the other hand, if the cop didn't have his lights and sirens on when he ran the red light, he should be held accountable just like any other citizen. There was no emergency, therefore he had no right to break the rules.

My thanks to the fire department

[MoxFulder]

While the police seem to be objecting to this policy for no good reason, it sounds like the Dallas Fire Department accepts that they are subject to the same law as everyone else. From TFA:

For the fire department, it's much more cut-and-dried, said Lt. Joel Lavender, a Dallas Fire-Rescue spokesman.

"We don't really have a lot of business running lights, period," Lt. Lavender said. "If you mess up and you're not on an emergency run, you get a ticket. They're subject to the same penalty, in addition to being punished by the fire department."

Good on 'em!

They are supposed to obey traffic laws

[rbanzai]

I worked at two police departments.

Officers are supposed to obey all traffic laws. Code 1 and code 2 responses require obeying the laws. Only code 3 calls (lights and siren) allow them to break these laws.

Cops frequently break these rules. Sometimes it's about expedience, sometimes it's about laziness.

Most cops have informal "code 2 high" which means not using lights or siren and breaking traffic laws as safely as possible. Sometimes they will just use a quick squirt of the lights to get through an intersection.

Bottom line: if the regulations specify obeying the law then they damn well ought to. They are setting a horrible example. When the regulations allow it they should of course feel free to go all out.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[NiceGeek]

It may be state law but I see cops in downtown Portland flash their lights to run a red light and then turn them off all the time.
Of course these are the same cops who tasered a elderly one-eyed woman.

More Taxes...

[nick_davison]

You can't do away with the police's right to abuse their authority...

Let's face it, the only reason anyone donates to the frequent calls from the various police related funds is because you get a nice bumper sticker that they all but outright state will let officers know you've given them money and thus should be exempted from most traffic tickets.

If they had to start abiding by the law, no longer selectively applying it when it comes to their friends and those who effectively bribe them, they couldn't make those exceptions. Without those exceptions, who would give them money? Without that source of income, how would they replace that revenue stream? More taxes.

So, really, unless you want more taxes, you have to support our felonious friends in blue. Sure, there are some irksome moral questions about their honesty here... but more taxes would be... unAmerican!

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[setirw]

Sure. Here are some NHTSA data [findarticles.com]. A total number of 300 fatal crashes from 1991-2002 killed 275 occupants of other vehicles. Since we're discounting the "one dude in the ambulance," I won't factor in the 82 ambulance occupants killed in those 300 fatal crashes over a 11 year period into my figure. 275 fatalities over 11 years is certainly less than the tens to hundreds of thousands saved by ambulances each year.

Re:My thanks to the fire department

[fermion]

And just to add my thanks to those people who are sworn to uphold the law, and not jut trying to look cool, here is the story of the sheriff who wrote himself a ticket, and his collegues that think he is bonkers. cool sheriff [piercecountyherald.com]

Re:My biggest problem with the Po-Po

[SmokeyTheBalrog]

> "They tailgate people at night to "nudge" people into doing wrong."

That is illegal for cops to perform and is called "entrapment"

Should this happen to you, you should definitely fight it as you are very likely to win, especially if you are willing to pay for a lawyer. But even without one, you should be able to win.

Simple defense: His driving sacred me and I was about to call the cops when his lights went on. He clearly drove in a frightening manner to make me speed up. It's entrapment.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[crosstalk]

Yes they ought to follow the law, My cousin was broadsided when an officer ran a red light, with no sirens and no lights, just had a stupid moment, ran the light and broadsided her car. broker her pelvis in 4 places, an emergency c-section, and still walks with a limp to this day. Is it to much to ask that they follow the laws like everyone else when not in an emergency?

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[SkyDude]

Police, fire trucks, and ambulances are all legal to run red lights under the condition that they run their lights and/or siren to indicate their intent. In fact, I've seen officers on many occasions run their lights JUST to proceed through an intersection, then turn them off.

I don't know where you live, but in Massachusetts, any firefighter, police officer or paramedic that activates the lights and sirens for a non-emergency reason, can receive a citation and a suspension for that action. I'm certain that it happens, but the few firefighter / paramedics I've known claim they would never do it because of the penalty.

As long as I'm in a writing mood, let me add that in many municipalities, traffic lights have been equipped with sensors that cause the lights to all turn red. The sensor is activated by a strobe on top of an emergency vehicle. In other places, the traffic lights on the route to the emergency are under the control of the emergency dispatch center and can be set to red with a few keystrokes. This type of system is very expensive and only used in a handful of locations I'm aware of.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[The_Wilschon]

You misunderstand the GP, who is not wrong. A distinction must be made between a de jure double standard, that is, a law which makes a distinction between police and non-police, and a de facto double standard, that is, a society in which the police do not follow the written law.

The GP referred to a de facto double standard, which I agree, and I think you will too, we must not have. You refer to a de jure double standard, and say we must have one. I agree with this also, and strongly suspect that the GP does also, particularly based on the GP's language about amending the law when there is compelling evidence that police exemptions are in the public interest. He says (as I understand it) that where there is need for a double standard, it must be a de jure double standard, and not a de facto double standard.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[tcgroat]

S.O.P. and laws vary from place to place, but around here a police car or ambulance approaches the red light carefully, with siren, flashing red lights, and traffic signal control strobe running. The driver does not enter the intersection against a red light unless all other traffic has yielded to them. If that means they need to slow down or stop, they brake!. Even though the law requires all other traffic to yield to emergency vehicles with flashing lights, their driver is as much responsible for avoiding a collision as the other driver who failed to yield. Failure to yield to emergency vehicles happens often, watch the morons zip past the next time you pull to the side for a car with flashing red lights. As the bumper sticker says, they need to "Hang up and drive!"

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[joto]

The police ought to follow the law. Period. They should not be exempted from any law, unless there is a compelling argument that exempting them from the law is in the public interest. And if that is the case, then the law ought to be amended. There should not be a double-standard.

From the article: "I think what they're worrying about is what if it's 2 o'clock in the morning, you're headed to a call but it's not an emergency call," Cpl. Bristo said. "If I roll right through that light, I might save myself a minute or two. With some calls, that minute or two can make a lot of difference."

I believe that just about sums it up.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[K'tohg]

The law states for emergency or public safety officials is that some traffic laws can be broken but with (and it stresses) "do regard" to others.

What this means is that if a police officer moved through an intersection after stopping at the red light with caution and a truck slammed in to him at 200mph he would not be liable since he showed "do regard".

If you cautiously proceed through and two others slam into each other after you pass because the drivers were staring at your pretty lights instead then you still showed "do regard"

If the officer flew through the intersection with out stopping at a high rate of speed. Lights or not this shows that he did not proceed with "do regard" and is held liable.

Then again that is the law as I understand it from the emergency safety service in the state of Connecticut.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they don't. My employees don't have to be moral, so long as they do what I say. And my employees don't lead me, I lead them.

When did people lose sight of what democracy meant? The government isn't supposed to decide what to do based on what they personally feel is right or wrong, the government is supposed to do what the people tell them to. The government isn't supposed to lead the country, the government is supposed to follow the peoples' lead.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[eric76]

In one city using photo-radar in the early 90s, all photos of police speeding were sent to the traffic sergeant.

If the officer wasn't on a legitimate, logged call at the moment, they got quite an ass chewing and a black mark in their personnel file.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[HUADPE]

I think you meant "due regard".

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[hexmem]

Oh yes it is their job to second-guess dispatch. I'm a firefighter and dispatch gets it wrong ALL THE TIME.

For example: Two months ago our department was paged out for a roof collapse. Supposedly ice build-up on the roof had caused it to cave in over the master bedroom. When we got there the roof was completely intact. The real reason we were paged out? The homeowner was afraid a big chunk of ice was going to fall off the roof and break a basement window.

During a real emergency it can get even worse because the people who called 911 (dispatch) are panicking and freaking out.

As for cops running red lights... I'm all for it. I've run them plenty of times in the fire truck. Under Utah law, it's allowed, as long as you don't further endanger the public.

http://www.code-co.com/utah/code/04/41-06_p1.htm#T 41-6-14 [code-co.com]

(2) The operator of an authorized emergency vehicle may:

(a) park or stand, irrespective of the provisions of this chapter;

(b) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation;

(c) exceed the maximum speed limits; or

(d) disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in specified directions.

Re:Do you know who I am?

[Darby]

Ron Paul in '08 - A true small government republican. - http://ronpaul2008.com/ [ronpaul2008.com] [ronpaul2008.com]

Pah.

Republicans completely rejected the idea of small government when they pissed away Goldwater in favor of Reagan the terrorist funding crack dealer.

If Ron Paul grows a set of balls and runs as a Libertarian instead of just posting articles to Lou Rockwell's site, I'd vote for him.

Voting Republican *is* voting for the biggest government possible and ultimate corruption and nothing else.

"Republican" has meant biggest government and ultimate corruption for damn near 30 years now.

Wake up.

The police need to be exempt or nothing gets done

[blhoward2]

As a cop and a volunteer EMT/fire fighter, I have some insight on this. Anyone running lights and sirens is exempt from stopping at red lights though they are entirely responsible as they are considered offensive drivers when doing so. That means their insurance pays no matter what if they hit you. In most states, fire trucks and ambulances are limited to an arbitrary limit above the speed limit, so say speed limit + 10 mph. Cops are not restricted to this limit due to the need for even faster arrival, the maneuverability of their vehicles, and the amount of training they receive (roughly 10 times that of an ambulance or fire truck driver, most departments average around 100 hours behind the wheel in high-speed situations)

Some other points:

-When most people think an ambulance or fire truck is going very fast, its not. It's all perception. I have had people call 911 and report I was speeding in a fire truck and when I was radioed I was only doing 5 mph over. I know this because the tanker I was driving isn't capable of getting up to speed that fast carrying 5,000 gallons of water. It also doesn't need to be the first vehicle on scene and thus is the last to pull out of the station. The lights and siren make it seem faster as well as public perception from movies where they are always speeding.

-As a cop, a siren is not required just because your lights are on. This is a code 2 (lights only) versus a code 3 (lights and siren response). When running code 2, you are more restricted from speeding and could be taking a greater risk depending on the situation. It means, I need to get there quicker the normal but I'm not going so fast that I can't comply with most traffic laws.

-Cops do not run lights and sirens for a reason on occasion. Sirens can be heard for over 3 miles and thus will alert criminals that they are close by. For that reason, they are not used on domestic disturbance responses (people tend to run or kill and then run) or when tracking a suspect (they know where to avoid you).

-Cops not getting tickets because of brotherhood is crap. While the cop may not get a ticket, they generally get very severe internal reprimands. Equate this to you taking a stapler from work. Should you be punished by your employer or charged with theft. I have seen cops demoted and take a $10k a year pay cut for getting into an accident because someone ran a red light and hit them while they were going through a green but their lights just happened to be on.

-A poster pointed out that cops don't always signal. This is probably true, have you ever tried to talk on a radio, usually to both a dispatcher and other units, type a plate into a mobile terminal, and drive at the same time? A cop must do this all at the same time even while on normal patrol. At some point, a cop is going to have to make a decision whether he can safely execute a maneuver without signaling or he is going to be task saturated.

-When a cop is tailgating, he is not enticing you to do wrong. He is pacing you. This is an approved method of speed determination in all states as radar is ineffective in the same direction you are traveling and within +/- 15 mph of your speed. Cop cars have certified calibration of their speedometers. They maintain an exact distance, usually 5 feet from your bumper and look down. This may seem inaccurate but it has been upheld many times and is virtually the only option. Most courts require you maintain this over some distance. Keep driving the speed limit and when he has an accurate speed he will pass.

-Cop cars are already equipped with GPS and radio systems that report speed and location back to the dispatcher. Their actions are enforced just not in the same way as yours.

-Red light cameras suck. I am sure the point the cops hate is who is liable for fighting this. Are the cops liable for searching logs and proving they were on a call? This could add a lot to the 4-5 hours of paperwork a normal cop does in a 12 hour shift. That's less time on the road and more mandatory overtime for the other cops to cover.

All pictures should be reviewed

[thorkyl]

by human eyes.

Yes there are times when an officer should run the light. However they should never run it without the strobes running.

As for human review...

I got one of the red light tickets
The photo showed my brake lights on, and smoke billowing out from under my trailer tires.
What the photo did not show that the video I took of the light right after I went through the intersection was that there was no Yellow, went straight from green to red.

Now if there was someone reviewing the pictures I would have not gotten the ticket.
It's hard to stop 17,000 pounds even though I was going less than 45mph, I still left
skid marks for about 75 feet and did actually come to a stop on the other side of the intersection with my horn blowing and full expectation of t-boning somebody.

So to me, Yes they are a good thing, Yes police should be able to run them if they are running their lights, someone should review them to make sure that there is not a reason for running the light. e.g. Getting out of the way of an ambulance or fire truck or police or in my case, just flat out unable to make the stop. Now I did show the Judge the video, and the photo of the "violation". His response, he sent a deputy out to look at the intersection to ensure the light was fixed, and dismissed my case.

Once a 14-year old has a level of contempt...

[Animaether]

...that they punch and strangle a police officer.. yes, yes it is a bad thing.
    http://www.nu.nl/news/1038914/14/rss/Jongen_probee rt_agente_te_wurgen.html [www.nu.nl]

Once masses of people get in a destructive uproar over two kids dying because they knowingly fled from the police and decided an electrical housing was a dandy place to do so.. yes, yes it is a bad thing.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_ France [wikipedia.org]

Once a smaller mass of people get in a, thankfully, more peaceful uproar over two kids dying because they knowingly fled from police on their moped, for the relatively minor offenses of not having a license plate and not wearing helmets, and wrapping themselves around a tree.. yes, yes it is a bad thing.
    http:/// [http] dammit, can't find it right now

Once there's several incidents where there's people taking their vehicle and purposefully trying to run into cops (rather, expect them to get out of the way as a means to escape whatever check (alcohol, speed, whatever) is being performed.. yes, yes it is a bad thing.
    http://www.nu.nl/news/740197/14/rss/Tilburger_rijd t_met_scooter_in_op_agenten.html [www.nu.nl]
    http://www.nu.nl/news/849457/13/rss/Scooterrijder_ rijdt_met_hoge_snelheid_in_op_agent.html [www.nu.nl]
    http://www.nu.nl/news/726139/14/rss/Automobilist_r ijdt_agent_aan.html [www.nu.nl]

Don't get me wrong, people don't have to just take *everything* authority, in these cases the police, are doing. A certain level of 'contempt' is sane. But keep in mind that the slope of contempt for authority is a very slippery one.
  Take the riots in France.. if I were a kid there now who committed a crime and I'm being chased by the police, I might be more inclined to flee as well - after all, a large portion of the population will stick by me should something go wrong - they'll tell the police that they shouldn't chase me at all, thanks to their new level of sheeple-contempt for authority. Heck, the police may be less inclined to chase me at all in fear of this contempt, and I could get away with whatever I was doing.

You and I may be able to keep our footing on it, but you and I both also know that plenty of people can't or even won't; regular news reports being ample evidence thereof.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the reason you will never, if at all, encounter #2 is because it is against all police departmental policy that I know of. A police officer will not (except in rare, nonsensical circumstances) transport a critically ill person in the back of their car -- the thought is that the cop can do much more stabilizing the person in the field, stopping bleeding, starting CPR, etc., while an ambulance races to the scene for help than having the person bleed out and become unconscious flopping around in the back seat while the cop pays attention to traffic for many critical minutes.

The cop in general does have the discretion to escort *you* to the scene in the above situation, but he would *never* transfer the patient to his car.

There are again some ridiculous situations in which he may do the second option, for instance the person was somewhat medically stable and he could not reach the ambulance dispatcher, and your car just broke down, etc., but in general it won't happen.

For Future Reference

[Slashdot Parent]

he said "If it's red you don't proceed."

Probably a rookie cop.

The correct procedure in this instance is to mail the traffic court and ask for a hearing, call the Department of Transportation and ask for a copy of the report for the malfunctioning traffic signal, send it to the DA with an explanation, and hope that he drops the charge.

If he doesn't, show up for court and show the report to the judge. There are no guarantees, but that should take care of the matter.

Texas law - must reduce speed thru intersections

[Anonymous Coward]

Not always. I can think of one case where I was going the legal limit, 45 IIRC, and the light suddenly changed.

Since the original article is about Dallas Texas, you may need to know that in Texas even though the speed limit of a major thoroughfare might very well be 45 or 50MPH, etc, that there also exists a statute (Texas Transportation Code, Subchapter H, Section 545.351(c) ) that says that the operator of a vehicle must reduce speed when approaching and crossing an intersection. The statute does not state an explicit amount by which to reduce speed, but Texas DPS (the state police & highway patrol) guidelines suggest the speed reduction to be at least by 5 MPH as a practical amount of speed reduction, so in your case of a 45MPH posted speed limit on the road leading up to the intersection with a traffic light, you should slow to 40MPH as you approach the intersection. A 5MPH reduction will give you significantly better stopping distance and additional time to react to a fast-changing traffic light (of which I have to admit there are plenty in Texas that turn from yellow to red much too unreasonably quickly).

This happened in San Diego too

[John Jorsett]

San Diego installed red light cameras years ago. The cops were all for it until they started getting hit with $371 fines themselves. Interestingly, the city had to turn the cameras off for a time when some enterprising folks discovered that the yellow light times had been deliberately shortened to entrap more people. There were a few other discoveries too, such as the cameras being run by a private company (Lockheed Martin at the time), and the cop who was supposed to "review" the tickets before they went out going on vacation and signing a bunch of blank forms so Lockheed Martin could cite people while he was gone. And then there were the threats by Lockheed Martin to sue people who wanted to subpoena the schematics, software, and calibration records of the cameras so they could contest their tickets.

Re:The police ought to follow the law.

[nanter]

Ambulances sometimes abuse the authority to run lights just to make the passengers feel like more is being done.

Knowing that is not true, I guess you just made it up? IAAAD (I am an ambulance driver) and we use lights and sirens and run red lights on the way to the call. The dispatcher has prioritized the call, but often information about the call is not accurate, so to err on the safe side we get there as quickly as we can. After we have determined the severity of the call in person at the scene, we decide whether we need to run lights and sirens on the way to the hospital. I would estimate that in 95% of cases, we drive normally, following all traffic laws as we take the patient to the hospital. When a decision is made to go 'code 2' with lights and sirens, it is because the patient's status is critical and every minute will count (e.g. heart attacks, serious traumas). We don't ever "abuse the authority to run lights just to make passengers feel like more is being done." That's just nonsense.