Florida to make it very expensive to appeal a camera ticket

 

"If you fight a red-light ticket under Florida's new rules, be prepared to pay more.

Although changes in state law were designed partly to make it easier to challenge a ticket issued because of a red-light camera, the new rules also allow local governments to tack on costs for hearing an appeal: up to $250 per case.

If you win an appeal, you pay nothing. But losing can be expensive — more than doubling the cost of a $158 ticket to $408 in some places.

"It's ridiculous," said Robert Azcano, owner and lead attorney at the Ticket Clinic in Orlando, which has won thousands of red-light appeals in Central Florida. Orange County and eight cities throughout the area use the cameras at dozens of high-traffic intersections to deter red-light runners." ...

ORLANDO SENTINEL - FULL ARTICLE LINK BELOW

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-re...

POI Files

Page 1>>

That sounds illegal, you

That sounds illegal, you should have a right to fight a ticket, do they pay you $250 if you win to pay your expenses?

>

You forgot to mention that you will loose a days pay and or must take a day vacation. I have yet to receive a ticket speeding or otherwise that I would benefit from fighting it.
Unfair? maybe, but they have you by the B----.

--
2 DriveSmart 65's - We do not live in Igloo's and do not all ride to work on snow mobiles.

Fight the System?

The fee is established as a warning to people charged with running a light... you better have a good defense. If you just want to "Show the Man", you will pay $250 extra for the privilege.

If you are willing to spend the time to demonstrate that the timing of the yellow light or the distance for the speed sign was not sufficient to stop or slow down, you will be saving other people unnecessary fines.

Either way, you get to do good by adding to the public purse to make your point or by saving other people money.

>

DanielT wrote:

Either way, you get to do good by adding to the public purse to make your point or by saving other people money.

Yep and and that's what all are waiting for, for "someone" to step up to the plate. Good luck with that idea. How long have Cameras bin around? What's changed? No longer a Money Grab? One person or 100 to change this? Problem is that, the money generated goes to the city and or County that installs the Camera. One needs to go outside the box.

--
2 DriveSmart 65's - We do not live in Igloo's and do not all ride to work on snow mobiles.

With my luck...

MD will be next to do this !!!!

--
RKF (Bethesda, MD) Garmin Nuvi 660, 360 & Street Pilot

Another example of greed.

This is yet another example of how it's not about safety, but about taking motorists money from them. It's time to ban them, everywhere.

Here's what I don't like

Besides the high appeal fee, what I don't like is this feature (quoted from the article):

"The hearing officer, paid by the city or county that issued the ticket, does not have to be a lawyer or adhere to rules of evidence, which guide a judge in traditional courts."

This is common with camera tickets and potentially further stacks the deck against those motorists who were ticketed unfairly. Does the hearing officer work to enhance revenue for the employer or work to ensure that anyone ticketed unfairly gets a fair shot?

--
JMoo On

With My Luck

rkf wrote:

MD will be next to do this !!!!

Ditto

I got ridiculed in another

I got ridiculed in another thread when I mentioned my state (Massachusetts) doing something similar for all its traffic fines. The only differences with Massachusetts is that the fee is not refundable and they don't currently have red light cameras.

Interesting.

Source: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3592.asp

--
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." --Douglas Adams

That's crazy. We as

That's crazy. We as motorists and citizens have the right to appeal, but now they have the right to charge us for the appeal? As the other(s) have posted, it all about the money.

Similar to another story where I read about possibly charging a tacked on fee for electric vehicles because those vehicles do not use gas and thus are not being taxed for highway repairs, etc.

+1

windwalker wrote:

That sounds illegal, you should have a right to fight a ticket, do they pay you $250 if you win to pay your expenses?

I totally agree with you. Why should I have to pay more if I lose, you have the right to fight a ticket.

Never ending ways to

Never ending ways to generate money.
The right to appeal should not come with a charge.

--
Maps -> Wife -> Garmin 12XL -> StreetPilot 2610 -> Nuvi 660 (blown speaker) -> Nuvi 3790LMT

Bad system.

Appealing legal rulings to a non-judge, non-attorney is a sham of an appeal process.

Privilege

All this is also reinforcing the concept that driving is a privilege. I have always been against that idea. It's ultimate conclusion is that only the very wealthy will be able to afford it. By then, the road will be almost empty (mmhhhh, something positive to consider...)

But seriously, driving should be a right (with restrictions - like every right, but also fairness and equal treatment). Imagine a society where most people can't drive. How to they go to work, take care of the kids, keep the economy going, etc? But that's a whole new thread I suppose...

*

gatorj wrote:

Appealing legal rulings to a non-judge, non-attorney is a sham of an appeal process.

It appears to be a violation of due process rights, in part because it hinders the ability of a person accused of a violation to mount a proper defense. It is more like closing the tribunal/court to that person.

I will never go to Florida

I will never go to Florida again and I suggest you all should not go there either. If you live there you should leave.

LOL

triliby wrote:

If you live there you should leave.

--
2 DriveSmart 65's - We do not live in Igloo's and do not all ride to work on snow mobiles.

The whole idea is..............

to have everyone pay regardless of guilt or circumstances. As always, RLC= Money Grab

>

Frside007 wrote:

to have everyone pay regardless of guilt or circumstances. As always, RLC= Money Grab

RCL= Ridiculous Levy Charge

--
2 DriveSmart 65's - We do not live in Igloo's and do not all ride to work on snow mobiles.

that's a fair deal

too many people feel they can break the law, because the system is broken. So go ahead and commit an offense, then contest it if caught. Nothing to lose. With this system, you have to decide if your appeal is frivolous or not.

My dad got some summons in Boston. He wrote a letter stating he did commit the offense, but was not aware of the parking regulations. They wrote him back and dismissed the summons. That is proof that the system is broken. He should have had additional fines levied for admitting guilt, then asking for a pardon. Life isn't Watergate. smile

>

johnnatash4 wrote:

too many people feel they can break the law, because the system is broken. So go ahead and commit an offense, then contest it if caught. Nothing to lose. With this system, you have to decide if your appeal is frivolous or not.

My dad got some summons in Boston. He wrote a letter stating he did commit the offense, but was not aware of the parking regulations. They wrote him back and dismissed the summons. That is proof that the system is broken. He should have had additional fines levied for admitting guilt, then asking for a pardon. Life isn't Watergate. smile

I guess you two get a long quite well

--
2 DriveSmart 65's - We do not live in Igloo's and do not all ride to work on snow mobiles.

Traffic tickets

jale wrote:

All this is also reinforcing the concept that driving is a privilege. I have always been against that idea.
But seriously, driving should be a right (with restrictions - like every right, but also fairness and equal treatment). Imagine a society where most people can't drive. How to they go to work, take care of the kids, keep the economy going, etc? But that's a whole new thread I suppose...

I am sorry but I disagree 100% for nowhere in the Constitution or any State Constitution does it ever say you are guaranteed the right to drive.
Driving is a privileged and not a right in any state in the USA.
IF YOU BREAK THE LAW then you must pay the fine but there are many on this blog that feel they should be given a break because there was not a policeman giving them a ticket.
This reminds me of history when Al Capone was served by mail that he was to appear in court for tax evasion. No cop gave him the summons as far as I read.
He was convicted of tax evasion and died in prison. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE GIVEN A TICKET BY A POLICE OFFICER TO STAND UP IN COURT. IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND and try to reverse the Supreme Court on this.
This was a Republican dominated Supreme Court that made this decision if one wants to know.

Anything to gouge the

Anything to gouge the sheeple.

--
an94

State Tax Substitute

Revenue from RLC tickets substitutes for not having state tax. There is no free lunch.

--
romanviking

Ridiculous

You should have the right to dispute the ticket and not be discouraged by additional fees. Looks like another money grab by the government.

You hit it

romanviking wrote:

Revenue from RLC tickets substitutes for not having state tax. There is no free lunch.

BINGO

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

Speaking of Rights

kurzemnieks wrote:

I am sorry but I disagree 100% for nowhere in the Constitution or any State Constitution does it ever say you are guaranteed the right to drive.
Driving is a privileged and not a right in any state in the USA.
IF YOU BREAK THE LAW then you must pay the fine but there are many on this blog that feel they should be given a break because there was not a policeman giving them a ticket.
This reminds me of history when Al Capone was served by mail that he was to appear in court for tax evasion. No cop gave him the summons as far as I read.
He was convicted of tax evasion and died in prison. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE GIVEN A TICKET BY A POLICE OFFICER TO STAND UP IN COURT. IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND and try to reverse the Supreme Court on this.
This was a Republican dominated Supreme Court that made this decision if one wants to know.

The Sixth Amendment is a right, a right to face your accuser. This right is being trampled upon time and time again by red light camera companies, and municipalities. Why should it cost more if you truly do not deserve a ticket? With a regular ticket, you get your day in court. You can plead guilty, innocent, insanity, whatever, but it doesn't cost you more for that privilege. This is basically a deterrent to fight red light camera tickets. And to those that want to say that you won't have to pay if you are found innocent, some people might not want to take that risk; that's what Florida is counting on.

Can You Say The Words

Can you say the words CLASS ACTION SUIT???

That's what should be done to cost the State SO MUCH, that they'll think twice about scuzzy actions to increase revenue!

Fred

It is the way to make money off the citizen

They make this law to discourage people from fighting their ticket and sure to make money.

Show me the money!

That's all anybody is looking for these days is how to get more money. In a way it could be a good thing because the consensus of opinion is that if you show up, most of the time the ticket will be dropped. Not so much for camera tickets, but it will stop a lot of people from trying and save the court unnecessary money. The problem is that it is still up to the judge and he can decide anyway he wants and there is not much you can do about it.

Crummy!

We've been wintering in the land of the Nearly Dead and Newly Wed's for the past three years.

Too darn many people ... and, yes, too many traffic cameras ... and now fighting the tickets will be more expensive.

Maybe we'll start wintering in Alaska.

--
Garmin 205, 260W, 1450LMT, 2460LMT, HEREwego for iPhone ... all still mapping strong.

The land of gimmie

Florida will use any way they can to get money out of anybody!
When they get it they spend it on bull**it.
Nothing that is for the people! Only to benefit the pols.
I have had a house there for over 15 years and have seen it go downwhill every year.

--
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things!

Glad you disagree

kurzemnieks wrote:
jale wrote:

All this is also reinforcing the concept that driving is a privilege. I have always been against that idea.
But seriously, driving should be a right...

I am sorry but I disagree 100% for nowhere in the Constitution or any State Constitution does it ever say you are guaranteed the right to drive. ...

I'm glad you disagree, otherwise I could have thought I was wrong!

This is an example of where your theory falls apart: Nowhere does the constitution say you've the right to live. So, is it a privilege?

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

jale wrote:

This is an example of where your theory falls apart: Nowhere does the constitution say you've the right to live. So, is it a privilege?

2ND PARAGRAPH

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

massive fail

spokybob wrote:

2ND PARAGRAPH

Are you under the false impression that the Declaration of Independence is part of the U.S. Constitution or in any way part of U.S. law? You might as well be quoting things out of the Bible when asked for a reference to something in the Constitution.

NOT

I actually quoted the Declaration Of Independence. Perhaps you missed that part.

--
1490LMT 1450LMT 295w

My point exactly

spokybob wrote:

I actually quoted the Declaration Of Independence. Perhaps you missed that part.

Yup, you quoted the DoI, which has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution or the laws of this land. The DoI. the Federalist Papers, the Bible, or almost any other document that you can quote are not the law of the land and not the Constitution. Go back and read the question that you responded to. You could make a stronger argument for quoting old English common law, but in the end it likely would not hold up. And it certainly would not be a valid response to the question.

It's nothing new. I fought

It's nothing new. I fought a ticket in FL in the late 80's and I lost. The judge added another $50 to the fine.

the

sunsetrunner wrote:

It's nothing new. I fought a ticket in FL in the late 80's and I lost. The judge added another $50 to the fine.

50 was court costs, the cost they are going to impose in FL on just to go to court

That is crazy!! How did that

That is crazy!! How did that law get passed and by who?

I AGREE

windwalker wrote:

That sounds illegal, you should have a right to fight a ticket, do they pay you $250 if you win to pay your expenses?

Seem only fair that a motorist who wins a red light appeal should be entitled to at least as much money as the state thinks is appropriate to take from a motorist who loses an appeal.

So true

They say they are going to impose the extra due to wasting the courts time and money. What about my time and money on a mistake on their part. I have to take time off work, drive to their location and sit in a courtroom half the day to state my case and show the mistake on their part. They then say I am right and sorry for the mistake. They should treat me the same way they expect to be treated.

what is there to fight?

You either a) did it b) didn't do it

The camera cannot produce a) a pic of your vehicle behind the stop line when the light turned red b) a pic of your vehicle proceeding through the intersection on red

How in the heck does a camera come up with b, if you didn't do it?

Today, once again, my vehicle is in a red light cam's pic. A Nissan Altima blew the light, and I saw the flash reflect off its rear glass. I suppose this motorist should claim his Constitutional rights were violated. Sheesh!

They will have a pic of my vehicle in the a scenario. In the 2nd pic, my vehicle will still be at the stop line.

Confusion still possible

A friend of mine a long time ago received a ticket based on a speeding camera. It was closed to his office and at about the time he did drive there. But it was odd because just about where the camera was, he had to make a very sharp left turn to enter the parking and couldn't possibly be going that fast.

He contested it but was told the photo evidence was clear. He demanded to see the photo and indeed a car, same model and color as his, was caught there going really fast. The problem: It was NOT his license plate number. There was no explanation on how the ticket went to him but it was eventually dismissed.

So now in Florida, it would cost him a fortune to demonstrate he was innocent!!!

I Wish Some Legislator Would Challenge This

I really wish come legislator would challenge this. This is ridiculous.

we weren't there

jale wrote:

A friend of mine a long time ago received a ticket based on a speeding camera. It was closed to his office and at about the time he did drive there. But it was odd because just about where the camera was, he had to make a very sharp left turn to enter the parking and couldn't possibly be going that fast.

He contested it but was told the photo evidence was clear. He demanded to see the photo and indeed a car, same model and color as his, was caught there going really fast. The problem: It was NOT his license plate number. There was no explanation on how the ticket went to him but it was eventually dismissed.

So now in Florida, it would cost him a fortune to demonstrate he was innocent!!!

This story is completely illogical--there is no way for anyone here to explain. I say, how can a camera produce a pic of a person doing something, when they didn't do it?

Then stories like this one are posted, basically saying a person didn't do something, a pic was produced, and the person was cited.

Honestly, there is no way for anyone here to come up with an explanation. But the story does not in fact make any sense.

These Kinds of Laws

These kinds of laws offend me. They taint other laws which are fair & equitable. This kind of law speaks of times in which governments are running amok with greed.

It's a very sad time for government encroaching on the rights of citizens! They let us know that one should get around the law(s) - not just this one - to make things fair.

Fred

Keep it open!

johnnatash4 wrote:

This story is completely illogical--there is no way for anyone here to explain. I say, how can a camera produce a pic of a person doing something, when they didn't do it?

Then stories like this one are posted, basically saying a person didn't do something, a pic was produced, and the person was cited.

Honestly, there is no way for anyone here to come up with an explanation. But the story does not in fact make any sense.

First remember that it is the picture of a car, not a person, camera forty year ago had limited resolution. The police explanation to my friend (and coworker of many years) was that a similar car (quite popular at the time) drove by at excessive speed around the same time. It was a very busy street indeed. You trust whatever you want, I trust my friend.

Back to my original point I was trying to make when I was so abruptly interrupted: Cameras, radars, all weather electronics equipments, are not infallible or can also be used incorrectly. It should NOT, as the thread remind us) cost an arm and a leg to defend yourself in court.

completely agreed. this is

completely agreed. this is all about filling up municipal coffers. somebody has to pay for all these inflated pensions and overtime

In a perfect world you'd be right, but ...

... there's always the ever present carelessness. Every once in a while we get a (current, not even old cameras) news story here in central Florida about someone getting a ticket (speed, red light, toll) for something they didn't do - the picture they got in the mail was not their car (different license plate). I've seen at least one story where the car wasn't even similar. Go figure ...

Anyway, now it will cost more to contest the ticket than to just pay the fine. I guess that's their goal.

--
Nuvi 2460
Page 1>>