PHOTO: ©ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
The Future of Speed Enforcement
vehicle and registered owner identification and automated issuance of a citation. The question remains, though: does our ability to do these things mean we should embark on an ASE program?
A QUESTION OF PRIVACY
T
that with current technology we could have operable automated speed enforcement systems in place in a few years, not a few decades as now predicted. The hold-up is legal and social, not technological. Legislative support for automated traffic enforcement tools has been difficult to garner. Significant opposition to using ASE technology to enforce speed laws continues to exist nationwide. In California alone, legislative bills have failed passages in the last two legislative sessions. Opponents to this legislation include the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, and the Riverside Sheriff’s Association. These law enforcement officer associations oppose ASE on several grounds. Among their chief concerns are allowing photographs to be taken of motorists, which they perceive as an intrusion into the motorists’ privacy. Other objections raised by these groups involve the use of ASE primarily to generate revenue, ASE hampering officers’ efforts to educate motorists they have stopped regarding their unsafe driving behavior, ASE allowing unsafe driving behaviors to continue at the time they are occurring, and ASE preventing opportunities for the enforcement of other traffic offenses such as driving under the influence. However, the most fundamental problem with ASE in California, according to these LEO organizations, is that ASE is incapable of determining whether a driver is violating the state’s basic speed law, which requires discretion on the part of a law enforcement officer. Such discretion is difficult when enforcement is automated and machines are pre-set to consider certain speed levels as violations. Soon the state’s judiciary will have an opportunity to weigh in on the issue of ASE. And the decision of those judges will likely impact the future of ASE nationwide. The only currently active ASE program in California, started in 1995, is in San Jose. The Neighborhood AuHE TRUTH IS
tomated Speed Compliance Program (NASCP) uses technology to address neighborhood speeding complaints. Three unmarked vans equipped with radar units and cameras take pictures of vehicle license plates and motorists driving faster than a predetermined threshold over the posted speed limit. The photographs are forwarded to Redflex Traffic Systems, a private company contracted by San Jose to process the violation notifications and send them to the registered owners of the vehicles. The registered owner is provided the opportunity to view the photographs taken when the violation occurred and either declare his or her innocence or acknowledge driving the vehicle. Five years ago the San Jose City Council voted to modify NASCP from an enforcement program to a warning program and directed the city DOT to work with the city manager’s office and city attorney’s office to explore legal options to retain or reinstate photo radar enforcement on local streets. In 2008, however, San Jose resident Jorge Ramirez filed a class-action lawsuit against the city over NASCP. Ramirez alleged that NASCP relied upon city engineers, not police officers to issue citations, and issued about $5 million worth of tickets over ten years in spite of the program being prohibited by the California Vehicle Code. Ramirez alleges the citations resulted in a multitude of fines and an increase in drivers’ insurance rates and contends that since the tickets were illegal, the city should pay drivers back.
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INITIATIVE
G
and concerns about privacy, can Americans realize the benefits of ASE technology? I believe we can, but getting there will require those of us in public safety to rethink traffic enforcement and the way we police the nation’s roads. Traditionally, an officer detects a speeding vehicle, initiates a traffic stop, and issues the violator a traffic citation. The violator appears in court and is either found not guilty or guilty. The guilty violator is subjected to a combination of fines, incarceration, license restriction or suspension, vehicle impoundment or seizure, mandated driver education, community service, or probation. A viable alternative to this traditionIVEN SUCH LEGAL ROADBLOCKS
20 J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 2
FBI0112_Speed.indd 20
2/6/12 12:00 PM