D.C. police operate speed camera in Maryland

Another case where government hides behind complexity & cost to do unfair & illegal things.
Perhaps a Law Firm that wants to make a name for itself for fairness could follow up on this issue so the cost doesn't fall on individuals.

It is just these kinds of cases that make citizens get angry about government overstepping it's bounds.

Fred

@FZbar, assuming that you read the articles, are you concluding that the infractions did not occur in DC? Did the individuals involved not break the law (overstep their bounds, so to speak)?

You must be concluding that the fact that the camera is technically in Maryland means that the tickets lack validity which seems to be a decision that a court should make rather than you concluding that the government is not following the law.

governments should operate within their own correct boundaries. Perhaps this is another case where revenues were more attractive than legality or perception of legality.

Budgets have always been tough in DC & their relationship with Congress somewhat at odds.

What I expect from DC government is a bit more than they are, apparently, willing to do.

Fred

Jeez, jgermann, so if you're speeding while traveling from town A to town B, and town B has a radar trap set up 500 feet inside town A and ticketed you, you'd just send town B a check and apologize for speeding? What if they were a mile inside town A. Still Okay?

Based on details in the article, the legal boundary between the state of Maryland and Washington DC is in dispute at this intersection. It sounds like if you use one set of measurements, the intersection is in DC and if you use a slightly different set of measurements it is in Maryland.

Both sides seem to have valid arguments - based on each sides' lawyers. So a court decision is the best method to clarify the situation.

It is important that enforcement agencies follow the laws, even when they are inconvenient.

The camera was located in an area that was not within the jurisdiction of the District. The vehicle's speed was measured outside the jurisdiction of the District. The DC infraction was charged to a vehicle that was not within their jurisdiction. There is no basis in law for one jurisdiction to enforce its regulations in another jurisdictions area. Even the concept of hot pursuit does not apply because the vehicle was not in pursuit from a law enforcement officer with DC credentials.

Your statements are totally off base in this instance because you don't know the facts of this incident.

Reread the articles and then come up with a logical scenario based on the facts that you read in those article to pose to me. I did not find anything in the articles that relate your Town A/Town B question.

I repeat: Huh?
This is from the original poster:
...However, a WTOP Ticketbuster investigation has uncovered one of those cameras was placed in Prince George's County, Maryland, which could be illegal under D.C. law. During a months-long investigation, D.C. officials have not denied the camera might technically be sitting in Maryland...

In this scenario let's call town A Prince George's County and Town B Washington, D.C.

I repeat, Phil, reread the articles - or read them if you have not read them in their entirety.

We have one camera that is on a pole that certainly looks like it is in Maryland - although even that has not been conclusively established (the words you quoted being "might (emphasis on might) technically be in Maryland". There was considerable discussion as to where the "boundary" should be.

The legal dispute - as I was reading the articles - is on whether or not a camera has to be "in the district" or whether taking pictures of an intersection "in the district" could be permissible.

My initial reaction was to

which seemed to me to be a case of Fred not carefully reading the articles and making opinion statements not justified by the few "facts" as we know them.

In American football, once the player is out of bounds, the action ends. In futbol everywhere else, the player can be out of bounds, but play continues as long as the ball remains inside the boundaries.

If the camera is the player and the ball is the automobile, then whose rules are we following?

Does that sum this up?

That does sum it up.

The latest news is
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/08/06/d-c-traffic-camera...

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Shuts-Down-Speed-...

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/08/were-d-c-police-illegal...

http://www.wtop.com/1319/3674366/DC-police-move-camera-out-o...

I personally think that, since the camera itself appears to be in Maryland, the tickets issued as a result of that camera would likely be determined to be invalid if taken before a court.

I personally think that, since the camera itself appears to be in Maryland, the tickets issued as a result of that camera would likely be determined to be invalid if taken before a court.

I agree.
Fred

If a police officer was standing in MD, observing the motorist speeding in DC, a court might dismiss the charge on grounds of the officer operating outside of his/her geographical area of employment.

However, RLC tickets are couched as civil violations, not traffic infractions. Judges might be much less inclined to care where a camera was in such a situation.

Doesn't make it right or wrong, just thinking out loud fwiw.

Unfortunately, they will be ruled valid. You don't think they are going to give back all the money they have taken since 1999 do you?

Not a chance. "Let bygones be bygones"

Really, why everyone knows the D.C. in Washington D.C. stands for District of Corruption!

As long as they are catching people who are breaking the law I don't have a problem.

It is so common now I wish a law firm would pick up the case. I am so tired of the abuses by our Government

I get that this forum tends to be anti-govt. and anti red light cams, etc.

We were in DC last weekend, and yes, I was extra careful to not run ANY red lights, or speed.

Is it less convenient? Of course, the POI file is going off all the time, and some were not valid. But that's life. Not everything the govt. does is a money grab and against its citizens. Sometimes, there have to be some controls in place to prevent "anything goes."

The one that gets me is when a credit union (the largest in the world) has an anti gun policy inside its branches, and people have a problem with that, close their accounts, and go elsewhere and pay 2% higher interest. It's extreme.

There should be some citizen oversight on the operation of these devices. Otherwise they become just an income for the governments involved.

And the difference between fines from people exceeding the speed limit or running red lights differs from other sources how?

There will always be some "bad apples" whether it be in a government job or a corporate job. That does not mean, as you seem to imply, that - without citizen oversight - all municipalities will abuse automated traffic enforcement (ATE).

It would seem that ATE is one of the governmental activities that attracts the highest of citizen oversight throughout the country.

imho when Maryland said 12 mph over, you get a $40 automated fine, that was purely in the interest of public safety. $40 is less than many people make in an hour, and 12 mph is reasonable. If you're doing 47 in a 35, should you skate? There's a good chance an officer would let it slide, but a camera has to have some threshold.

If a governmental agency is not following applicable laws, they should be taken to task and held to account for their actions.

Just the same as a driver of a vehicle should be held accountable when they exceed the posted speed limit or enter an intersection when the light is red.

But it seems everyone wants to hold everyone else up for scrutiny but don't want the same light turned on themselves

Huh?

It's called voting with your wallet, sometimes losing a few dollars is worth it to make a point. The theory is if enough people did it they might change their policy.