Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has set his sights on shutting down, or at least undermining, the statewide freeway photo enforcement program. Thomas said today he won’t prosecute any speeding crimes based solely on evidence from speed cameras as supplied by the state Department of Public Safety. Initially, Thomas argues his position reflects the intent of lawmakers who set penalties for speeding  violations as recorded by the DPS cameras that are weaker than those penalties from tickets issued by a law-enforcement officer who has pulled over a motorist. Quoting from his press release:

“Arizona Revised Statute Section 41-1722, the so-called photo-radar statute, provides for a photo-radar enforcement system to regulate vehicle traffic and speed in Arizona. Subsection D of the statute specifies that “the department of transportation shall not consider the violation for the purpose of determining whether the person’s driver license should be suspended or revoked.” The County Attorney concluded that because the legislature prohibited the use of photo-radar evidence for suspension or revocation of driver’s licenses, the legislature ipso facto could not have intended for such evidence to be used in the even more serious context of criminal charges.”

Thomas’ reasoning seems convoluted, but perhaps judges would agree with it. At least one West Valley justice of the peace has refused to consider any tickets issued from the photo enforcement program because the Legislature set lower penalties than for the same offensive when caught by a patrol officer.

My objection comes from what Thomas said next when he implied that even if the Legislature hadn’t set lower penalties, photo enforcement still has problems because it violates the Sixth Amendment right to confront your accuser in court. Thomas parrots long-time critics of speed cameras when he says, “In photo-radar cases, there are no witnesses, and defendants are not permitted to confront their accuser.”

That’s completely false, and Thomas knows it. The law enforcement officer or proper authority who signs the civil ticket (or requests that criminal charges be filed) is the witness. That officer must make the determination that he or she can identify the specific motorist who committed a specific violation at a specific day and time, based on a review of the DPS photos and any other evidence that the officer might gather.

If the officer who signs the ticket or makes the criminal allegation fails to show in court, then the defendant can assert a Sixth Amendment argument. Or, if the officer can’t convince the judge or jury that the right motorist is in court, then obviously the defendant should be found not guilty.

But it’s spurious to suggest that a speed camera can’t pass the Sixth Amendment test. A speed camera is a law enforcement tool to collect evidence of wrong-doing, just like fingerprint dust and a DNA cotton swab. Speed cameras accuse no one; that’s done by law enforcement and attorneys representing the state.

Posted in: Uncategorized • Andrew Thomas • photo enforcement • Sixth Amendment • speed cameras |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.