|
Please pardon our progress while this site is under construction.
Who We Are We are safety professionals employed locally and citizens of Livingston Parish. It should also be noted that we fully support state, parish & local police departments monitoring & issuing citations for unsafe driving on our interstates, highways and roads within Livingston Parish. To date, not one member of Ban the Van has received any citations by REDFLEX GROUP; therefore, we have no personal vendettas against the company or any of its employees. More importantly, we are concerned for the safety & rights of each and every citizen of Livingston Parish, as well as, the thousands of other citizens that drive through our parish daily. Our concerns pertain to the newly enacted Code of Ordinance (Section 08-42) by the Livingston Parish Council to outsource local law enforcement to a commercial company. You may have watched the news segment “Livingston Parish Speed Van” on WAFB news or even recently noticed the unmarked white Ford Escape with KC style lights parked on the shoulder of the highway. Most people only noticed the vehicle after the camera flash stunned their senses while driving through the parish. This Mobile Unit is set up to capture picture & video surveillance to issue citations to individuals caught driving in excess of posted speed limits.
The Livingston Parish Council & Sheriff’s Office would like us to believe that the contract signed with REDFLEX GROUP is for public safety rather than another revenue stream. The Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office stands behind their comments that the outsourcing of law enforcement is for the “safety of our citizens.” They hold strong to their beliefs though no calls were made to other jurisdictions with REDFLEX GROUP contracts or non-renewed contracts and without reviewing or performing any studies to corroborate their beliefs. They would also like us to believe that cameras flashing in the eyes of drivers during the day & night do not cause sudden disorientation of the senses or sudden hard braking of vehicles and are less hazardous than people driving in excess of posted speed limits. These determinations were made without credible studies proving that the REDFLEX GROUP’S Mobile Units actually reduce speeding and traffic accidents. We, as well as many other jurisdictions that held contracts with REDFLEX GROUP, believe this program to be incredibly unsafe to public safety, which our law enforcement is sworn to protect. We fully intend to expose REDFLEX GROUP, the Livingston Parish Council & Sheriff’s Office for using “Safety” as a guise to hide their real intentions which is a new revenue stream during tough economic conditions.
General Objections
Parish officials were made aware from the beginning. Livingston Parish officials were made of the numerous issues with this program from the start when ordinance 08-42 “REDFLEX” was first proposed. David Guidry from the District Attorney’s office addressed the council as a concerned citizen and not as a District Attorney Representative. Mr. Guidry’s statement was interesting. I quote, “adoption of the ordinance is a bad idea as it could be unconstitutional, although additional research would be needed.” Mr. Guidry said, according to the meeting notes that the ordinance appears to combine the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government under the Council’s control. We now realize that this statement was not completely accurate; Mr. Guidry had the Council confused with the Livingston Parish Sheriffs office. There is a state law that prohibits police officers from taking photos and mailing tickets to those who violate certain traffic related laws. However, as Jason Ard of the Livingston Parish Sheriffs office so delicately put it to FOX news, “I see what the law says, but we’re not acting under the law.” This statement aside from being a horrendous choice of words raises additional concerns of the program. The Sheriff’s Office gets approximately 60% revenue from the program, which presents a conflict of interest. They also have authority over screening the tickets prior to them being enforced and further controlling the appeals process. Being that this is a “civil” offense and not criminal, you do not plead your case before a judge or jury but instead an administrative hearing is held. Please do not be surprised to find that the due process you are entitled to is cleverly left out of this equation. Safety and not Revenue. By now we have all had a chance to hear Sheriff Willie Graves or Perry Rushing, also of the Sheriff’s Office, adamantly claim that this is about safety and not about revenue. However, the Sheriff does not find it necessary to give any thought to the obvious fact that this “flash” created by the van at night is a blatant hazard. He refuses to respond to the public with designated areas for the van to operate. Numerous citizens have complained that the van has previously been parked off the shoulder of an already dangerous road such as Cane Market. Perhaps most disgusting to the people of this great parish is the fact that Sheriff Graves feels no accountability to disclose to the public how the funds generated as a result of this speed van program will be used. Many have expressed concerns over potential mishandling of the funds to purchase additional “toys” for the LPSO Sheriff’s Office such as speedboats, helicopters, etc. We say that since this is about driver safety, the funds should be turned over from REDFLEX to local high school defensive driving programs, the under funded Animal Control Center, or be put to use in other places throughout the parish that have immediate needs. The general consensus is that we care not where the money goes as long as it does not show up in Sheriff Graves’ discretionary budget. The Sheriff may be an extremely talented and resourceful politician. He may even be a great law enforcement or criminal justice expert. However, when it comes to safety, he either just does not get it, or he just does not care. I am going with the latter of the two. Outsourcing local law enforcement. Outsourcing our local law enforcement to a publicly traded company is not only a poor decision but also further proof that this has nothing to do with safety. Taking a photo does not fix a hazardous situation such as a drunk driver on the interstate. Policemen and women have the ability to immediately engage themselves in the situation and to take control ensuring that harm does not come to other motorist on the interstate. This program is an attempt to outsource the safety and comfort that police officers provide to citizens to a company interested only in making money. We predict that it will not be long before REDFLEX or one of their lobbyists claiming that surveillance vehicles are more productive and cost efficient than police officers publishes some bogus study. BanTheVan simply cannot stand by and wait for that to happen. A police officer also operates with a conscious. He or she can take into account various circumstances or conditions that may cause a motorist to take certain actions where a camera cannot. We, as citizens, further afford police officers certain privileges that come as a result of their responsibilities to protect and serve. We reasonably assume that police officers are operating under a code of ethics, moral standards, and follow the letter of the law. REDFLEX employees have no incentive to operate under any of these accountability measures of character. They are often underpaid and have no previous experience of law enforcement. Ticket recipients are not adequately notified. Most governments using ticket cameras send out tickets via first class mail. There is no guarantee that the accused motorists will even receive the ticket, let alone understands it and knows how to respond. However, the government makes the assumption that the ticket was received. If motorists fail to pay, it is assumed that they did not pay on purpose. Enforcement of payment of this civil penalty and related fees may consist of but not limited to immobilization of vehicles (booting), reporting the debt to collection agencies/credit reporting agencies, and/or initiating actions through the small claims court. A notice of violation under this division presumes to have been received on the 10th calendar day inclusive of weekends and legal holidays after the date the notice of violation is mailed. The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified. Typically, the photos taken by these cameras do not identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even if the owner was not driving the vehicle and may not know who was driving at the time. The owner of the vehicle is then forced to prove his or her innocence, often by identifying the actual diver who may be a family member, friend or employee. Ticket recipients are not notified quickly. People may not receive citations until days or sometimes weeks after the alleged violation. This makes it very difficult to defend oneself because it would be hard to remember the circumstances surrounding the supposed violation. People have to send a written request to have an administrative hearing and/or call the Sheriff’s office to attempt to appeal a ticket in a time period of less than 30 days. Even if the photo was taken in error, it may be very hard to recall the day in question. There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those rare instances where a law enforcement officer is overseeing a ticket camera, it is highly unlikely that the officer would recall the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle. The appeals process affords LPSO the ability to act as police, judge and jury, which removes a citizen’s right to “due process.” Ticket camera systems are designed to inconvenience motorists. Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor that sends out tickets often refuses to send a copy of the photo to the accused vehicle owner. This is really because many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver or the driver is obviously not the vehicle owner. Typically, the vehicle owner is forced to travel to a courthouse or municipal building to even see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience meant to discourage ticket challenges. Ticket cameras do not improve safety. Despite the claims of companies that sell ticket cameras and provide related services, there is no independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce overall accidents, or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is like believing any commercial produced by a company that is trying to sell you something. Taking dangerous drivers' pictures doesn't stop them. Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless or otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green! Photo radar is still radar, and it can generate false readings. This type of enforcement emphasizes ticket volume. Despite claims to the contrary, photo radar is used in locations characterized by high traffic volume and under-posted speed limits. It is not profitable to use photo radar on residential streets, low volume roads or where speed limits are posted at the 85th percentile (the speed at which they should be posted). At $100 to $460 per ticket why would LPSO want to use it in residential areas without school zones. Ticket camera inaccuracies. Tests done by the University of Virginia found that fewer than three percent of the photos taken of vehicles on Interstate-type roads provided a clear image of a single vehicle, the license plate number and the driver. Photo radar should not be used on high-speed, multi-lane highways. Yet, some cities still use it on these types of roads. Photo radar encourages artificially low speed limits. In areas where proper speed limits have been set according to the 85th percentile (the speed at or below which 85 percent of traffic is flowing), cameras could only make money if their tolerance threshold was very low, such as one or two miles per hour over the speed limit. Politically, this is not acceptable, nor will the courts support this kind of enforcement. The only option is to put the photo radar on roads with unreasonably low speed limits, and then make sure the limits stay low.
Our Requests
· We call for the REDFLEX Mobile Unit to shut down operations starting at dusk and the use of bright camera flashes is forbidden during specific hours. · We request that the REDFLEX employees working in our community and parked in our neighborhoods be given criminal background checks to ensure that they are not convicted sex offenders, convicted felons, etc. · We request that Livingston Parish respond with a detailed plan of how they plan to ensure the confidential information of our citizens, in regards to issuance and collection of these fines. Ex. Social security numbers. · We call that the mobile unit (Ford Escape) be labeled with some type of flash warning & identification and that it be forbidden from parking on the side of dangerous roads and in dangerous curves. Ex. Cane Market Rd · A detailed plan needs to be released immediately to the public describing how both the Sheriff’s Office and Parish Council will use the funds generated by these citations. · The Parish needs to inform the citizens that these vehicles are equipped with video surveillance equipment including streaming video that is being monitored and saved by a commercial company.
|
|
Contact Us Email: theman@banthevan.com |
