CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT FILED IN KNOXVILLE TENNESSEE VERSUS REDFLEX ROBOCOP SCAMERAS IN AUSTRALIA


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, AT KNOXVILLE

JUDY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,

vs.

REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS INC.,
CITY OF KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE,
BILL HASLAM as MAYOR OF THE
CITY OF KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE,
KNOXVILLE CITY COUNCIL,
REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS INC., d/b/a
WWW.PHOTONOTICE.COM, MICHAEL L. SULLIVAN, and UNKNOWN,
Defendants.

No.: 3:06cv400
JURY DEMAND
Filed OCTOBER 16, 2006

COMPLAINT

COMES now Plaintiff to hereby sue the above parties as a result of the unlawfully deprives or hinders her access to the courts, a civil right, on August 8, 2006, when she was sent a City of Knoxville, Tennessee, Red Light Photo Enforcement Program Notice of Violation/Citation, although innocent.

1. In an effort to obtain more funds for the coffers, the City of Knoxville is attempting to create a utopian society which uses quasi criminal citations, with trappings of civil procedure, to enforce ordinances which attempt to avoid their criminal root and foundation, all while recreating a poll tax. As Joe Bailey has stated in public, as an elected member of the City Council of the City of Knoxville he would like to see the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program expanded into speeding enforcement. The only step left to reach the Orwellian, utopian, society of the movie "Demolition Man" is the voice activated citation system to control cursing, today a technical possibility. The Knoxville Red Light Photo Enforcement Program intentionally trashes the Constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Tennessee due process right to free access to the courts to defend one¿s self against the State. The City of Knoxville has instituted an illegal and offensive demand that cited parties pay court processing fees in the amount of $67.50 to merely schedule a hearing to contest the judgment of a Knoxville Police Officer, who, as a "Star Chamber," acts as an agent of Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., all intended to obtain without due process the appearance of appropriate quasi-criminal fines. Knoxville Code §17-210 does, as implemented, deprive persons of the Constitutional presumption of innocence. Access to the Court to dispute the claim by a governmental entity intending to confiscate property or to assert innocence are fundamental to our society which, like the right to vote, can not be legislated away as if a hindrance to collection. The City of Knoxville requirement of assessing an administrative charge for a defendant to respond to a citation (whether civil or criminal) is unique in the United States as no other program expressly assesses an administrative fee in advance of a hearing, whether administrative or judicial on a criminal citation. The offensive assessment of a charge to access the Constitutional right to confront an accuser, here the City of Knoxville, is as offensive as charging a person a sum for the right to vote, a poll tax. The Knoxville Red Light Photo Enforcement Program is designed to entrap citizens at certain selected intersections, such entrapment includes the marking of roads in violation of 23 CFR 655, the Manuel on Uniform Traffic Control Devises, and the Tennessee Traffic Design Manuel. Such entrapment by illegal road markings is compounded by the other forms of contractual agreement or implementation of the provisions of the contract. This complaint is about maintaining the Constitutional protections available under the United States Constitution and the State of Tennessee Constitution, and to halt the slide toward a system of laws intentionally designed to avoid Constitutional protections.

2. The City of Knoxville, contracted with Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.,(hereinafter "Redflex") a private company with an economic interest in the prosecution of citizens of Knoxville. Defendant Redflex is in the business of inducing governments into contracting with Redflex for automated citation systems for economic benefit of Reflex. Defendant City intentionally surrendered the protections to citizens found within the Constitutions of the United States, and Tennessee, which are also incorporated within Code of Ordinances, City of Knoxville, Tennessee, (hereinafter "Knoxville City Code"), to obtain money. Further, by participating in the City of Knoxville¿s illegal stop line marking, in violation of 23 CFR 655, the Manuel on Uniform Traffic Control Devises, and the Tennessee Traffic Design Manuel, it appears that both Defendants share in liability, under the Tennessee comparative fault allocation, for every automobile accident which occurs in the intersection. The Defendants, along with Defendant Photonotice, have additionally conspired to prevent the public from accessing public records by contract to avoid the "Open Records Act" in violation of Tennessee statute.

3. Defendant City, Mayor, and Council did enact a law intentionally designed to surrender the protections to citizens found within the Constitutions of the United States, and Tennessee, and within Code of Ordinances, City of Knoxville, Tennessee, (hereinafter "Knoxville City Code") Sec. 19-33 where the citation process is set forth in detail, all violated by Knoxville City Code Sec. 17-210. While public officials may choose any rational for enacting a law, including false or logically inconsistent statements, such suspect enactment is not a basis for reversal or finding of unconstitutionality, however, when the effect of the law is to deprive due process under the law, the statue may be struck. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) (where the $1.50 annual poll tax was found to violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution). Further, the attempt to decriminalize a statute of the State of Tennessee enacted to protect the public is an illegal grab of power by the City in violation of the laws of the State of Tennessee.

4. Officer Sullivan is sued for the issuance of a citation where he did not observe the Plaintiff or any other person violate any statute or ordinance, was not present at any violation, and was acting as an agent for the City of Knoxville, while assigned to affirm the decisions of Redflex, in furtherance of violation of Constitutional rights.

5. Unknown persons, all expected to be officers of the Police Department of the City of Knoxville, Tennessee, also signed Notice of Violation/Citations where the Unknown Defendants did not observe Plaintiff or any other person violate any statute or ordinance, was not present at any violation, and was acting as an agent for the City of Knoxville in furtherance of violation of Constitutional rights. Additional unknown persons, knew or should have known that the existing road markings in Knoxville, Tennessee, violate federal road marking standards.

6. The governmental entities are sued under the theory of respondent superior, negligent/grossly negligent supervision, negligent/grossly negligent training, and vicarious liability under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act.

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

7. Plaintiff Judy Williams is a resident of Knox County, Tennessee.

8. Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., is a Delaware corporation, whose parent is found in Australia, found in Scottsdale, Arizona, available for service of process through it¿s registered Agent, National Registered Agents Inc., 1900 Church Street, Ste. 400, Nashville, Tennessee, 37203.

9. Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., d/b/a www.photonotice.com, is a Delaware corporation, whose parent is found in Australia, found in Scottsdale, Arizona, available for service of process through it¿s registered Agent, National Registered Agents Inc., 1900 Church Street, Ste. 400, Nashville, Tennessee, 37203. Ownership of the web site www.photonotice.com has not been determined and the nature of the relationship, and form of control or ownership by Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., of www.photonotice.com, is unknown.

10. City of Knoxville, Tennessee, is a political subdivision of the State of Tennessee, may be served through it¿s Mayor, Bill Haslam, City County Building, Knoxville, Tennessee.

11. Bill Haslam, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Knoxville, may be served at City County Building, Knoxville, Tennessee.

12. Knoxville City Council, is the governing body of the City of Knoxville, and may be served through Mayor, Bill Haslam, presiding officer of the Counsel, at City County Building, Knoxville, Tennessee.

13. Michael L. Sullivan, a police officer in the City of Knoxville Police Department may be served at his employment, City of Knoxville Police Department, Knoxville, Tennessee.

14. Plaintiff claims include claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and this District Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1331, 1332(d)(1). Supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims of the Plaintiffs and the Class is granted by 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.

FACTS

15. On information and belief, Plaintiff Williams received a "Notice of Violation/Citation" number KR00009126 on or after August 8, 2006, which alleged that the Plaintiff violated "Knoxville City Ordinance Section 17-210(c)(1)" and that "I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Tennessee the foregoing is true and correct" all signed by Michael L. Sullivan, Knoxville Police Badge Number 1300. Exhibit A, at 1.

16. By signing the affidavit, Defendant Sullivan, intended to enter an equivalent to a judgment of conviction. The burden of proof is not on the officer to prove that the event occurred and that the person cited is legally responsible for the act, the burden is placed on the cited individual, all an intentional component of Knoxville City Ordinance Section 17-210, and the contract between Defendant City and Defendant Redflex.

17. Defendant Sullivan intended that Plaintiff Williams be deprived of $50.00 and that if she wished to dispute his judgment, that she would need to appeal to Knoxville City Court, all in accord with the contract between Defendant City and Defendant Redflex.

18. Plaintiff Williams was noticed of her right to a hearing and that if she scheduled a hearing to dispute the allegation, she "will be assessed $67.50 in court processing fees." Exhibit A, at 4.

19. Plaintiff Williams, according to the citation "Must Select One of the Following Options:" A - pay a $50.00 fine; B - sign an affidavit that the vehicle wassold or stolen, or Identify another Driver, and C - pay the assessed $67.50 in court processing fees to schedule the hearing. Exhibit A, at 4.

20. On information and belief, the assessment of a $67.50 court processing fee to schedule a hearing deprives or hinders Plaintiff her access to the court to dispute the citation, under the color of law.

21. Defendants provided an "Options" page with the citation, a "Payment Coupon," an "Affidavit" where the Plaintiff would be required to provide evidence against a third party, or a "Hearing Request" which informs Plaintiff, "To schedule a hearing you will be assessed a court processing fee of $67.50." Exhibit A, at 2.

22. On information and belief, Defendant Redflex, intentionally reduces the frames captured rate at intersections for later review, but not available to download, on the web site where a red light enforcement citation may be found at www.photonotice.com to less than standard frame rate, which reduces the information available to Plaintiff to assert any defense, although the first second of the "violation" is at a standard frame rate.

23. On information and belief, Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., d/b/a www.photonotice.com, (hereinafter "Photonotice") is owned or controlled by Defendant Redflex a foreign company which is controlling the information obtained by Defendant Redflex and such retained government documents, with privacy information is subject to intercept on the internet, and such information is maintained in a manner in violation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et. seq., personally identifiable financial information protected by the act, and Redflex or Photonotice is failing .

24. On information and belief, the Notice of Violation/Citation language supports the Plaintiffs¿ position that Defendants presume alleged violators guilty, all without trial or opportunity to be heard, with the Knoxville Police Officer detailed to Defendant Redflex being the star chamber judge.

25. Knoxville Code § 17-73 provides: "[a]ll fines and forfeitures collected upon conviction or upon the forfeiture of bail of any person charged with a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be paid into the city treasury and deposited in the general fund and be expendable as provided by the city charter." Exhibit B (collective cited sections from the Knoxville Code).

26. Knoxville Code § 17-210(d)(1) provides: "[a]ny violation of subsection (c) of this section shall subject the responsible person or entity to a civil penalty of $50, without assessment of court costs or fees. Failure to pay the civil penalty or appear in court to contest the citation on the designated date shall subject the responsible person or entity to assessment of court costs and fees as set forth in this chapter and chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances."

27. The contract between the City of Knoxville and Defendant Redflex expressly provides that the collection of fines for traffic violations will be conducted by Redflex. Exhibit "D" of the Redflex Contract states "Redflex will collect all payments on Citations and will deposit all payments into a lockbox account . . .." Exhibit C, Redflex Contract.

28. Knoxville City Code Sec. 17-181, "Required Position and Method of Turning at Intersections, states: "The driver of a vehicle intending to turn at an intersection shall do so as follows: (1) Right turns. Both the approach for a right turn and a right turn shall be made as close as practicable to the righthand curb or edge of the roadway."

29. Knoxville Code Sec. 17-502, Manual and Specifications, states: "All traffic control signs, signals and devices shall conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices approved by the state department of transportation. All signs and signals required under this chapter for a particular purpose shall so far as practicable be uniform as to type and location throughout the city. All traffic control devices so erected and not inconsistent with the provisions of state law or this chapter shall be official traffic control devices."

30. Knoxville Code Sec. 17-504, Installation Requirements for Enforcement Purposes, states: "No provision of this chapter for which official traffic control devices are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official device is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person. Whenever a particular section does not state that official traffic control devices are required, such section shall be effective even though no devices are erected or in place." This is a similar provision to Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-109(b).

31. The Tennessee Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, at paragraph 6.4, provides that the MUTCD (an apparent reference to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices cited in 23 C.F.R 655) shall guide the placement of road markings.

32. The Tennessee Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, at paragraph 6.4.2.3, provides that intersections with crosswalk stop lines must be a minimum of 4' from the crosswalk, and points to figure 6.3 for guidance. Found on Figure 6.3 is the guidance for 4' to 30' placement of stop line placement where no crosswalk exists, and fails to provide Tennessee guidance for placement beyond 4' from a crosswalk.

33. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, incorporated into 23 CFR 655, paragraph 3B.16 states "If used, stop and yield lines should be placed a minimum of 1.2 m (4 ft) in advance of the nearest crosswalk line at controlled intersections, . . . . In the absence of a marked crosswalk, the stop line or yield line should be placed at the desired stopping or yielding point, but should be placed no more than 9 m (30 ft) nor less than 1.2 m (4 ft) from the nearest edge of the intersecting traveled way. Stop lines should be placed to allow sufficient sight distance to all other approaches to an intersection."

34. On information and belief, the Violation Data of the automated red light enforcement program are City of Knoxville records. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(C).

35. On information and belief, Defendant Redflex retains possession, control, and access of the Violation Data of the automated red light enforcement program. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(C).

36. On information and belief, persons convicted of any ordinance violation have no expectation of confidentiality of the conviction and/or the payment of fine.

37. The Redflex Contract provides that the violation data is the property of the City however, that Redflex "shall not disclose Violation Data or privately disclose or use the Violations Data for any purposes whatsoever except as specified in [the Redflex Contract] without the prior written consent of the City, except for information that: (1) is or becomes generally available to the public through no fault of Redflex personal; or (2) is required to be disclosed by law or by a court of competent jurisdiction." Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(C).

38. Defendant Redflex selects the images which are relied upon by a City of Knoxville police officer, in this case Defendant Michael L. Sullivan, in the issuance of a Red Light Photo Enforcement Program Notice of Violation/Citation. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(D)(2).

39. On information and belief, the only images relied upon, by the officer signing the citation, are the images which the officer declared under penalty of perjury were reviewed, namely the two images selected by Defendant Redflex for printing. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(D)(6).

40. Defendant Reflex exercises oversight and training of the City of Knoxville police officers assigned to the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(D)(13). 41. Defendant Redflex provided training includes strategies for presenting "Violations Data" in court and judicial proceedings. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.15.

42. Defendant Redflex is contractually obligated to "interact with court and judicial personal" by developing the subpoena process, and controlling the coordination between Redflex, the City, and City Court personnel. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.16.

43. On information and belief, persons convicted of any ordinance violation have no expectation of confidentiality of the conviction and/or the payment of fine.

44. On information and belief, the effect of this delegation is to allow a private company, with an economic interest in enforcement, (payment is based on citations paid), to control the access of information to the court, and the presentation of that information to the court.

45. On information and belief, the stop line viewed in the photograph used by Officer Sullivan to issue the Notice of Violation/Citation, at the intersection of Western Ave. and Henley Street at the L&M Station prior to the parking lot entrance, is 80' from the edge of the crosswalk and is therefore is by 50' in violation of 23 C.F.R 655, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and Tennessee Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

46. On information and belief, federal funds have been used in the construction, expansion, maintenance, modification, or otherwise, on either Western Ave., also known as a Tennessee Hwy. and Henley Street, also known as U.S. Hwy. 441, at the intersection of these roads and therefore Defendant City of Knoxville must apply the standard cited within 23 C.F.R 655, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

47. On information and belief, the City of Knoxville traffic engineering department routinely violates, 23 C.F.R 655, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and Tennessee Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Examples exist such as the Weisgarber and Papermill intersection, and the obviously modified stop line placement for the benefit of Braden¿s Fine Furniture & Interiors at 1335 Western Ave., among others.

48. On information and belief, upon placement of the camera system at the intersection of Western Ave./W. Summit Hill & Henley St., Defendant Redflex knew or should have known of the violation of the aforementioned traffic manuals.

49. On information and belief, Defendant Redflex accepted the violation as a benefit for the Defendant corporation in that the trigger for the camera operation would be the crossing of the improperly placed stop line.

50. On information and belief, Plaintiff¿s vehicle was photographed crossing the illegally or improperly placed stop line when the traffic light for the intersection was red. The Plaintiff is clearly stopped in the second photograph prior to the crosswalk. The second photograph clearly shows a stopped vehicle, but cites that the stopped vehicle speed is 31 MPH.

51. It is proper for a vehicle to stop prior to a crosswalk when making a right turn at a red light. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-149, and Knoxville Code Sec. 17-178.

52. Other non-criminal citations, such as a parking citation, Knoxville Code Sec. 17-331, Overtime Parking, provides for citing the vehicle owner, but such is accomplished by physically placing the citation on the vehicle, and provides for a date to appear and contest the citation.

53. On information and belief, more than 10,000 Photo Enforcement Program Notice of Violation/Citation have been issued.

54. On information and belief, all except one of the more than 10,000 Photo Enforcement Program Notice of Violation/Citation have paid a $50.00 fine or have been assessed the $50.00 fine and court costs of $67.50, whether paid or not paid. Further, that all such sums have been obtained with the color of law and a depravation of property such that the parties who have benefitted from the confiscations should be required to forfeit the money and such money be returned to lawful owner, and any unpaid sum be expunged.

55. The Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states in part, " . . .nor shall any person . . . be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, . . . ." Additional protections found within the Constitution include: Sixth Amendment "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense." The Fourteenth Amendment states at Section 1, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

56. On information and belief, Knoxville Code Section 17-210 does, as implemented, deprive persons of the right to confront witnesses, right to speedy trial, and obtain counsel without prepaying a tax to the City when attempting to schedule a hearing, all without due process of law.

57. On information and belief, Knoxville Code Section 17-210 does, as implemented, deprive persons of property without due process of law, and denies equal protection of the law.

58. On information and belief, Knoxville Code Section 17-210 does, as implemented, deprive persons of property without due process of law, and by placing the burden of proof on the car owner, deprives the car owner of the Constitutional presumption of innocence.

59. On information and belief, Defendant City of Knoxville failed to monitor, train, control, or otherwise take appropriate steps to supervise Defendant Sullivan, and others assigned similarly.

60. On information and belief, Defendant City of Knoxville, did intentionally assign Defendant Sullivan, and others, to a duty intended to deprive citizens there right of access to the court without prepayment.

61. On information and belief, the City of Knoxville, retains fines obtained from paid citations, which are required to be returned to the general fund of the State of Tennessee.

CLAIMS

SECTION 1983 and 1988

(An Act Under Color of Law to Deprive Access to the Court)

62. Plaintiff adopts and restates the previous paragraphs.

63. Plaintiff is a member of the class the statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was enacted to protect.

64. Defendants, Knoxville and/or Defendant Redflex , in agreement, started or caused someone else to start the criminal proceeding against the plaintiff.

65. Defendants acted under the color of law to harm Plaintiff, and the public.

66. Defendants, Knoxville and/or Defendant Redflex knew or should have known that Defendant Knoxville was in violation of 23 C.F.R 655, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in the marking of roads selected for inclusion in the Photo Enforcement Program.

67. Defendants caused or directed Defendant Sullivan to issue a citation to deprive Plaintiff of money and which will subject her to further harm if unpaid, all under the color of law, intentionally depriving Plaintiff of her access to the Courts under the due process, confrontation, and taking clauses of the Constitution, without necessity of paying a $67.50 de facto tax prior to any finding of guilt.

68. Plaintiff suffered damages for harm to reputation in the community, humiliation, fright, shame, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, and worry.

69. Plaintiff claims damages for the denial of proper access to the Court to defend herself, in the amount of $1,000,000.00, punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trail, and her attorney fees, available under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

SECTION 1983 and 1988
(Decriminalization of State Statute)

70. Plaintiff adopts and restates the previous paragraphs.

71. The Tennessee Supreme Court has held that "it is uniformly held that a municipality may not pass an ordinance which conflicts with a statute, or indeed with a legislative policy, of the state." City of Memphis v. Southern Ry. Co., 67 S.W.2d 552, 553 (Tenn. 1934.); see also Katzenberger v. Lawo, 16 S.W. 611 (Tenn. 1891) (where the City of Memphis attempted to suspend, alter, or change a general statute and the Court ruled the effort a nullity).

72. The State of Tennessee did criminalize failure to obey traffic control devise, the red light, at Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-109.

73. In order to protect the public the Tennessee Department of Safety has established a system of administrative suspension of a driver licence in order to protect the public from habitual offenders. Tenn. R. & Reg. 1340-1-4.01.

74. Tennessee Department of Safety has assigned a point value of 4-points to any violation of a traffic control device statute at Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-8-109, Tenn. R. & Reg. 1340-1-4.03.

75. That upon the accumulation of sufficient points within a one year period, twelve (12), the Department of Safety shall issue a Notice of Proposed Suspension. Tenn. R. & Reg. 1340-1-4.04.

76. That the City of Knoxville, for non-automated citations, does require obedience of traffic control device, Knoxville Code § 17-503, and such violation is a misdemeanor reported to the Tennessee Department of Safety, Knoxville Code § 17-47, for assignment of points and other Tennessee Department of Safety purposes.

77. The City of Knoxville, has decriminalized, and ceased reporting, failure to obey traffic control devise at automated enforcement intersections. Knoxville Code § 17-210.

78. The intentional effort by the City of Knoxville to avoid the reporting requirement mandated by Tennessee law, is in conflict with the statute and legislative intent to protect the public through the Tennessee Department of Safety driver license improvement program, an unconstitutional grab of State power by the City. See City of Bartlett v. Hoover, 571 S.W.2d 291 (Tenn. 1978) (where a municipality, by ordinance, may not contravene the established statutes of the state and there can be no direct conflict between a provision of an ordinance and an act of the general assembly).

79. Plaintiff seeks an order declaring the act of the City of Knoxville, void, and therefore any liability of the Plaintiff under the void ordinance, Knoxville Code § 17-210, a nullity, and that such enactment was a violation of the Plaintiffs Constitutional rights.

80. Plaintiff claims damages for the denial of proper access to the Court to defend herself, in the amount of $1,000,000.00, punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trail, and her attorney fees, available under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

81. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants must disgorge themselves of the obtained funds and return the money to the parties from whom Defendants using unconstitutional practices did seize the money from, and that her attorneys be compensated in accord with the common fund doctrine for the benefit accruing to the beneficiaries of the litigation.

SECTION 1983 and 1988
(Contract to Deprive Civil Rights)

82. Plaintiff adopts and restates the previous paragraphs.

83. Tennessee Courts have held that "[n]o governmental entity can by contract deprive itself of inherent powers necessary to the performance of its functions or of power or duty imposed upon it by prior express statutory or constitutional provision." Batson v. Pleasant View Utility Dist., 592 S.W.2d 578, 581 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979)(citations omitted); see also Broyles v. State, 341 S.W.2d 724, 726 (Tenn. 1960).

84. The United States Supreme Court has held that the powers exercised by municipalities "must be granted in express words, or necessarily to be implied [from the express words]." Detroit Citizens¿ St. Ry. Co. v. Detroit Ry., 171 U.S. 48, 54 (U.S. 1898).

85. The Tennessee Supreme Court has historically held that "[t]he delegation of sovereign power is, in itself, an act of sovereignty, and can only be made by the constituent body in whom the original power resides, or by its express authority." State v. Armstrong, 35 Tenn. [634, 655 (1856)]. See also Op. Tenn. Att¿y Gen. No. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006).

86. The Attorney General of the State of Tennessee has opined that a contract between a municipality and a third party that involves "the issuance of citations to such violators . . . ." by that third party violates the principle that a state¿s sovereign powers may not be delegated to third parties. Op. Tenn. Att¿y Gen. No. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006). Such a contract "is effectively delegating to the private company . . . the manner of enforcement and the enforcement itself of the city¿s traffic ordinances." Op. Tenn. Att¿y Gen. No. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006).

87. The Attorney General of the State of Tennessee has opined that a contract between a municipality and a third party that involves "the collection of fines" by that third party violates the principle that a state¿s sovereign powers may not be delegated to third parties. Op. Tenn. Att¿y Gen. No. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006). Such a contract "is effectively delegating to the private company . . . the manner of enforcement and the enforcement itself of the city¿s traffic ordinances." Op. Tenn. Att¿y Gen. No. 06-150 (Oct. 2, 2006).

88. Knoxville Code § 17-73 provides: "[a]ll fines and forfeitures collected upon conviction or upon the forfeiture of bail of any person charged with a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be paid into the city treasury and deposited in the general fund and be expendable as provided by the city charter."

89. Knoxville Code § 17-210(d)(1) provides: "[a]ny violation of subsection (c) of this section shall subject the responsible person or entity to a civil penalty of $50, without assessment of court costs or fees. Failure to pay the civil penalty or appear in court to contest the citation on the designated date shall subject the responsible person or entity to assessment of court costs and fees as set forth in this chapter and chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances."

90. The contract between the City of Knoxville and Redflex expressly provides that the collection of fines for traffic violations will be conducted by Redflex. Exhibit "D" of the Redflex Contract states "Redflex will collect all payments on Citations and will deposit all payments into a lockbox account . . .." Exhibit C, Redflex Contract.

91. On information and belief, the Redflex Contract violates Knoxville Code § 17-73 and such deposit of funds is actually barred by existing ordinance and a contract is void contract when the provisions of the contract are in conflict with the laws which govern the contract. The Redflex Contract is void. See also Shavitz v. City of High Point, COA 05-571 (N. C. Ct. App. May 16, 2006) attached hereto at Exhibit D.

92. The assessed court processing fee of $67.50 which is assessed in order to schedule a hearing is initially paid to Redflex and then shared by the City of Knoxville in a split of 85% Redflex 15% City of Knoxville according to Exhibit "D" of the Redflex Contract. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract.

93. If the payment is received by the City of Knoxville, then the City must forward the entire payment to Redflex according to Exhibit "D" of the Redflex Contract , therefore the City of Knoxville never has control of the payments made to Redflex until after deposit, all such payments only subject to administrative accounting by Redflex after deposit.

94. Redflex is impermissibly exercising police power by controlling the images which are relied upon by a City of Knoxville police officer, in this case Defendant Michael L. Sullivan, in the issuance of a Red Light Photo Enforcement Program Notice of Violation/Citation. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(D)(2).

95. On information and belief, the only images relied upon, by the officer signing the citation, are the images which the officer declared under penalty of perjury were reviewed, namely the two images selected by Defendant Redflex for printing. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(D)(6).

96. Reflex is exercising oversight and self serving training of the City of Knoxville police officers assigned to the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program and such close continuous relationship is an element of a supervisory relationship which is an impermissible exercise of police power by a private company for profit. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(D)(13).

97. Defendant Redflex provided training includes strategies for presenting "Violations Data" in court and judicial proceedings, an impermissible intrusion into prosecutor functions, and an apparent effort to train officers to prosecute alleged offenders whom they did not personally observe violating any statute, and therefore a planned contractual effort to train non-attorneys to present hearsay as fact and to act as prosecutors. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.15.

98. Defendant Redflex is contractually obligated to "interact with court and judicial personal" in an impermissible exercise of police power by developing the subpoena process, and controlling the coordination between Defendant Redflex, the City, and City Court personnel all of which is an impermissible exercise of police power by Defendant Redflex and an unconstitutional delegation of governmental authority. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.16. The effect of this delegation is to allow a private company, with an economic interest in enforcement, (payment is based on citations paid), to control the access of information to the court, and the presentation of that information to the court.

99. Defendant Redflex is granted ownership of evidence which is to be used in a court proceeding which is an impermissible transfer of governmental right and power to a private company, and a violation of Constitutional protection provided to defendants.

100. Plaintiff seeks an order declaring the act of the City of Knoxville, void, and therefore any liability of the Plaintiff under the void ordinance, Knoxville Code § 17-210, a nullity, and that such enactment was a violation of the Plaintiff¿s Constitutional rights.

101. Plaintiff seeks an order declaring the contract between the City of Knoxville and Defendant Redflex, void and therefore any effort by Defendant Redflex to collect any claimed sum derived from the contract or any liability of the Plaintiff under the void ordinance, Knoxville Code § 17-210, a nullity, and that such contract is a violation of the Plaintiff¿s Constitutional rights.

102. Plaintiff claims damages for the denial of proper access to the Court to defend herself, in the amount of $1,000,000.00, punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trail, and her attorney fees, available under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

103. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants must disgorge themselves of the obtained funds and return the money to the parties from whom Defendants using unconstitutional practices did seize the money from, and that her attorneys be compensated in accord with the common fund doctrine for the benefit accruing to the beneficiaries of the litigation.

SECTION 1983 and 1988
(Contract Revenue Sharing to Deprive Civil Rights)

104. Plaintiff adopts and restates the previous paragraphs.

105. The assessed court processing fee of $67.50 which is assessed in order to schedule a hearing is initially paid to Defendant Redflex and then shared by the City of Knoxville in a split of 85% Defendant Redflex 15% City of Knoxville. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract at Exhibit D.

106. If the payment is received by the City of Knoxville, then the City must forward the entire payment to Defendant Redflex according to Exhibit D of the Redflex Contract , therefore the City of Knoxville never has control of the payments made to Defendant Redflex until after deposit, all such payments only subject to administrative accounting by Defendant Redflex after deposit.

107. Knoxville Code § 17-73 provides: "[a]ll fines and forfeitures collected upon conviction or upon the forfeiture of bail of any person charged with a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be paid into the city treasury and deposited in the general fund and be expendable as provided by the city charter."

108. Knoxville Code § 17-210(d)(1) provides: "[a]ny violation of subsection (c) of this section shall subject the responsible person or entity to a civil penalty of $50, without assessment of court costs or fees. Failure to pay the civil penalty or appear in court to contest the citation on the designated date shall subject the responsible person or entity to assessment of court costs and fees as set forth in this chapter and chapter 8 of the Code of Ordinances."

109. The contract between the City of Knoxville and Defendant Redflex expressly provides that the collection of fines for traffic violations will be conducted by Defendant Redflex. Exhibit "D" of the Redflex Contract states "Redflex will collect all payments on Citations and will deposit all payments into a lockbox account . . .." Exhibit C, Redflex Contract at Exhibit D.

110. On information and belief, the Redflex Contract violates Knoxville Code § 17-73 and such deposit of funds is actually barred by existing ordinance.

111. Plaintiff seeks an order declaring the Contract between the City of Knoxville and Defendant Redflex, void and therefore any liability of the Plaintiff under the void ordinance, Knoxville Code § 17-210, a nullity, and that such enactment was a violation of the Plaintiffs Constitutional rights.

112. Plaintiff claims damages for the denial of proper access to the Court to defend herself, in the amount of $1,000,000.00, punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trail, and her attorney fees, available under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

113. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants must disgorge themselves of the obtained funds and return the money to the parties from whom Defendants using unconstitutional practices did seize the money from, and that her attorneys be compensated in accord with the common fund doctrine for the benefit accruing to the beneficiaries of the litigation.

SECTION 1983 and 1988
(Injunction)

114. Plaintiff adopts and restates the previous paragraphs.

115. The injury to the Plaintiff is capable of repeating and therefore an injunction to order Defendants to cease acting in a manner which violates Constitutional guarantees of due process is necessary.

116. Plaintiff seeks temporary and permanent injunctions to suspend enforcement of Knoxville Code § 17-210.

OPEN RECORDS ACT

117. Plaintiff adopts and restates the previous paragraphs.

118. On information and belief, the records of the City of Knoxville are records which are available for public inspection, Tenn. Code. Ann. § 10-7-503.

119. On information and belief, Defendant Redflex, is a quasi-governmental agency within the meaning of Memphis Publishing Co. v. Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 67, 78 (Tenn. 2002).1

1 "Under Tennessee Public Records Act, the public should have access to the records of every private entity which provides any specific, contracted-for services to governmental agencies, and while a private business does not open its records to public scrutiny merely by doing business with, or performing services on behalf of, state or municipal government, when an entity assumes responsibility for providing public functions to such an extent that it becomes the functional equivalent of a governmental agency, the Tennessee Public Records Act guarantees that the entity is held accountable to the public for its performance of those functions." Memphis Publishing Co. v. Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 67, 78 (Tenn. 2002).

120. On information and belief, the Violation Data of the automated red light enforcement program are City of Knoxville records. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(C).

121. On information and belief, Defendant Redflex retains possession, control, and access of the Violation Data of the automated red light enforcement program. Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(C).

122. The Redflex Contract provides that the violation data is the property of the City however, that Defendant Redflex "shall not disclose Violation Data or privately disclose or use the Violations Data for any purposes whatsoever except as specified in [the Redflex Contract] without the prior written consent of the City, except for information that: (1) is or becomes generally available to the public through no fault of Redflex personal; or (2) is required to be disclosed by law or by a court of competent jurisdiction." Exhibit C, Redflex Contract para. 1.4(C).

123. Defendant Redflex has delegated, internally or contractually, response to Plaintiff request to view her images using the method, the only method, provided in the citation, to Defendant Photonotice and such set of images are a redacted set without a manner to copy or retain the images.

124. The City of Knoxville has violated the statutory intent of Tenn. Code. Ann. § 10-7-503 when the City entered a contract which limits public access to traffic enforcement records and requires that persons seeking access to Violation Data obtain written approval for such public review of the data.

125. The intentional violation of the Open Records Act is apparent as this provision appears to agree with the Knoxville Code requirement that no reporting of violations to the Tennessee Department of Safety shall occur. Knoxville Code § 17-210.

126. The safety of the public is adversely impacted by this violation of the Tennessee Open Records act as automobile insurance companies should be able to access the Violations Data to determine which drivers are operating vehicles in an inappropriate manner and adjust their insurance rate accordingly, all of which protects or furthers protection of the public.

127. Such contract is void as against the Tenn. Code. Ann. § 10-7-503, and the decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court which has held that private companies which assume governmental function are subject to the provisions of the act.

128. Plaintiff sought to review her records and such records have been redacted in an impermissible manner.

129. That redaction of the images is a violation of the Open Records Act.

130. That the intentional failure to provide a method to copy the images is a violation of the Open Records Act.

131. That the contractual provision to limit access to the citations is a violation of the Open Records Act.

132. Plaintiff seeks an injunction barring defendants from enforcement of the offensive contractual provision, and which directs Defendants to obey the law, Tenn. Code. Ann. § 10-7-503.

133. Plaintiff seeks her attorney fees, available under the statute.

OPEN RECORDS ACT

(Injunction)

134. Plaintiff adopts and restates the previous paragraphs.

135. The injury to the Plaintiff is capable of repeating and therefore an injunction to order Defendants to cease acting in a manner which violates the State of Tennessee access to the records of government and private agents whom accept the functional equivalent of a governmental agency.

136. Plaintiff seeks temporary and permanent injunctions to suspend the City of Knoxville contract with Defendant Redflex, and between Defendant Redflex and Defendant Photonotice until the contract is revised in a manner consistent with the Tennessee Open Records Act.

OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT / INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

137. Plaintiff re-alleges above paragraphs as if fully set forth, and alleges the following:

138. Tennessee state law allows for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, the standard of such a claim being set forth in Miller v. Willbanks, 8 S.W.3d 607 (Tenn., 1999). The Tennessee Supreme Court in Miller set forth the standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress as follows, "the tort typically exists when the recitation of the facts [of a commission of the tort] to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim ¿Outrageous¿!" Id. at 616. The Court in Miller also sets forth the types of distress that may be remedied, which include: "fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, worry, and nausea." Id. at 616.

139. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant¿s conduct meets the exacting standard of intent set forth in Miller because the conduct as it relates to Plaintiff would cause the average member of the community to exclaim "Outrageous!"

140. Plaintiff suffered damages for harm to reputation in the community, humiliation, shame, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, and worry.

141. Defendant¿s conduct rises to the level of intent set forth in Miller, Plaintiff seeks an award of $1,000,000.00 in compensatory damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

NEGLIGENCE/GROSS NEGLIGENCE

142. Plaintiff re-alleges above paragraphs as if fully set forth, and alleges the following:

143. Defendant s City of Knoxville, Mayor, and City Council, did negligently, or with gross negligence, fail to properly supervise or train Defendant Sullivan.

144. Defendants City of Knoxville, Mayor, and City Council, have a duty to properly supervise and train law enforcement officers to protect the public from uncontrolled abuse of power and are negligent or grossly negligent for failing to properly supervise employees who act in a manner inconsistent with Constitutional provisions.

145. Defendant Sullivan did negligently, or with gross negligence, cause a citation to be issued and Plaintiff liable for a charge the defendants knew or should have known should not be filed.

146. Defendant Redflex knew or should have known that intersections fail to comply with the standards of 23 CFR 655 and failed to take any step to inform the City of Knoxville.

147. Defendant Redflex benefitted financially from the failure to inform the public or the City of Knoxville of the violations of 23 CFR 655.

148. Defendant Redflex, by contracting to assist the City of Knoxville in the establishment of a photo enforcement program, and actually assisting the City of Knoxville, accepted a duty to the public to protect the public from the potential abuse that a photo citation system is subject, and Defendant Redflex failed in the duty to prevent abuse of the photo citation system.

149. Plaintiff claims damages in the unpaid $50.00 fine, and unpaid administrative cost of $67.50, additional damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00, in compensatory damages.

150. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants must disgorge themselves of the obtained funds and return the money to the parties from whom Defendants using unconstitutional practices did seize the money from, all members of the Class, that each member of the class individually receive $1,000,000.00 in damages for the negligent conversion of funds.

CIVIL CONSPIRACY

151. Plaintiff re-alleges above paragraphs as if fully set forth, and alleges the following:

152. That in committing the acts alleged herein, Defendants, acting in concert, committed the act of civil conspiracy, under state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1985, by agreeing to act together to harm the Plaintiff, and other members of the public, each acting for the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of harm against Plaintiff, agreeing that one or more will engage in these acts.

153. That Defendant Sullivan has a duty to Plaintiff to reasonably enforce the statutes of the State of Tennessee.

154. That Defendants City of Knoxville and/or Defendant Redflex did actually act in concert to harm the Plaintiff for the reasons set forth above.

155. Plaintiff seeks an award of $1,000,000.00 in compensatory damages.

156. That punitive damages are appropriate in an amount to be calculated.

157. That defendants are jointly and severally liable for the damages.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY

158. Defendant Sullivan, employee of Knoxville City Police Department, under the supervision and control of the department, acting with color of office, in furtherance of the duty or duties assigned to him.

159. Defendant Mayor Haslam, is responsible for the actions of its agents which those agents took in it¿s behalf.

160. Defendant City of Knoxville is vicariously liable for the actions and inactions by employees which contributed, directly or indirectly, to the harm suffered, which occurred with color of office, while individual defendant was on duty with the Knoxville City Police Department.

161. Defendant Mayor Haslam, and Defendant City of Knoxville, are jointly and severally liable for the actions of their agent which occur with color of office. Defendant Mayor Haslam and Defendant City of Knoxville is vicariously liable for the actions and inactions by employees which contributed, directly or indirectly, to the harm suffered, which occurred with color of office, while Defendant Sullivan was on duty with the City of Knoxville Police Department.

162. Defendants are liable, under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, for the negligent supervision and/or the negligent or grossly negligent training of their employees, and for the conduct of their agents.

163. Defendants are liable under the federal statutes for the conduct of their agents.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:

That service of process be issued and that Defendants be ordered to appear and answer this complaint.

That Plaintiff elect her remedy where appropriate.

That a jury of 12 hear this matter.

That a temporary injunction and a permanent injunction be granted against Defendant City of Knoxville to bar enforcement of Knoxville Code Sec. 17-210, by any officer of the law until such time as the Constitutional infirmities of the ordinance are removed.

That a temporary and a permanent injunction be granted against Defendant City of Knoxville, Defendant Redflex, and Defendant Photonotice until the contract and conduct of the parties conforms to the requirements of the Tennessee Open Records Act.

That the contract between Defendant City of Knoxville and Defendant Redflex be declared ultra vires and therefore void and that Defendant Redflex abandon all efforts to collect any sum due, and to disgorge itself of funds gained by the enforcement of the Redflex Contract.

That Plaintiff be reimbursed for costs, expenses, and attorney fees.

That Plaintiff be granted such further and general relief to which she is entitled.

THIS IS THE FIRST APPLICATION FOR EXTRAORDINARY PROCESS IN THIS CAUSE

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

s/David B. Hamilton

DAVID B. HAMILTON (BPR 020783)
Attorney for Plaintiff
P.O. Box 12891
1810 Merchant Drive, Ste. 1
Knoxville, TN 37912
865.219.9250 / 865.219.7982 fax
DBHamiliton.com
dbh@dbhamilton.com


Red light fees a mistake, city says

Federal lawsuit claims extra cost deprived woman her due process

By Jamie Satterfield
Knoxville News Sentinel
October 26, 2007

For months, citizens accused of running camera-monitored red lights in Knoxville were told they'd have to pay $67.50 just to have a hearing to contest the charge.

"The city acknowledges that was a mistake, having that incorrect language in the notice," attorney Michael S. Kelley told U.S. District Judge Thomas Phillips at a hearing Thursday.

Neither Deputy City Law Director Ron Mills nor Municipal Court Administrator Rick Wingate could say how long it took city officials to discover that error.

"It was pretty early on," Wingate recalled.

Redflex Traffic Systems Inc., a private company tapped to administrate the camera-based enforcement program, was responsible for fashioning those citation forms. Redflex earns a cut of whatever monies the city collects from red light violators, according to the contract approved by Knoxville City Council in 2005.

Both men insist no one was actually forced to pay the fee merely to hold a hearing.

"If you win, you pay nothing," Wingate said.

Lose, however, and cough up the $50 fine and the $67.50 fee, which actually is supposed to represent court costs, according to Wingate.

That would not be all that different from the way a speeding ticket is handled - with one big exception. It typically does not cost more to fight a speeding ticket in court than to pay it in advance. In fact, it could wind up costing less, since a judge might well cut an offender a break for having an otherwise clean record.

But there is big incentive under the city's Red Light Photo Enforcement Program to go down without a fight. Pay the ticket, and it will cost you $50. Go to court and lose and the tab jumps to more than $117.

According to Wingate, there have been 367 hearings to contest a red light violation citation. He does not know how many citations have been issued. Redflex keeps up with that tally. Prior reports have put the figure at well more than 11,000.

Knoxville resident Judy Williams contends that extra "fee" for fighting a losing court battle is one more example of how the city's contract with Redflex is an unholy alliance designed to empty motorists' pockets while stripping them of their due process rights.

Williams, cited in August 2006, has filed a federal lawsuit over the enforcement program. She alleges it violates a wide range of laws and constitutional guarantees.

"The Knoxville Red Light Photo Enforcement Program intentionally trashes the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Tennessee," her attorney, David Hamilton, wrote in the lawsuit.

Hamilton's chief argument is that the city has taken a misdemeanor criminal offense, which carries a slew of constitutional protections, and turned it into a civil offense, skirting the rights guaranteed to someone charged with a crime.

Under state law, running a red light is a class C misdemeanor. Under Knoxville's ordinance that laid the groundwork for the bargain with Redflex, it is deemed a civil offense.

"They call them civil," Hamilton argued Thursday. "They are not. There is not a single case in which a criminal defendant has to pay to have a hearing. No one has ever threatened to charge a defendant to schedule a hearing to defend himself. It shocks the conscience of the court. It shocks the constitution. They have turned an attack on our constitutional rights into a business."

Kelley, who represents Redflex, counters that even though Redflex incorrectly stated on the notice that a person must pay to schedule a hearing, it is not illegal to require someone to post money on the front end of a civil case.

Kelley is asking Phillips to toss out the lawsuit before it ever reaches a jury.

He argues that Williams had plenty of options to fight her citation without jumping into federal court.

"The crux of the argument is that there was established an appropriate process for (Williams) to challenge the issuance of this ticket and challenge the entire red light enforcement system," Kelley said. "(Williams) chose not to do that. A plaintiff can't sit back and refuse to use that procedure and then file a federal lawsuit and say I've been deprived of my due process rights."

Phillips said he would issue a written ruling, likely within the next month.

Comments

Posted by daxvolfan on October 26, 2007 at 12:49 a.m.

You shouldn't have to pay to take your case to court period.

Posted by truthseeker on October 26, 2007 at 12:56 a.m.

Hot damn! Someone finally has come forward who has enough guts to fight this money grabbing scheme! You go, gurl!

Posted by why36knot on October 26, 2007 at 6:22 a.m.

And the city doesn't even know how many citations have been issued or successfully collected nor how much money the Redflex people have recieved. The truth is that someone in city government met a "salesman" and bought this money grabbing program. I wonder what the payoff was for the "buyer".

Posted by Route66 on October 26, 2007 at 7:22 a.m.

Redflex keeps the records, I think it should be the city. Let the city collect the finds, and pay Redflex a quarterly payment.

Posted by bustervols on October 26, 2007 at 7:25 a.m.

Leeches

Posted by iwish95 on October 26, 2007 at 7:52 a.m.

If I was a betting person, I would say that the city knows exactly how many tickets have been issued. Think about it! They arent going to let someone else keep up with their money. I think it's a racket and another way of big brother watching and controling everthing we do.

Posted by Mulder on October 26, 2007 at 7:54 a.m.

You wonder why people avoid Knoxville.

Posted by tnmonster on October 26, 2007 at 8:34 a.m.

You know when you run a red light, not if your behind a bigrig and your moving bumper to bumper, your watching the bigrig at the sametime your trying to watch the light and the light isn't seen until the last second and you can't stop in the intersection so you move on and get a ticket. You don't believe this is a scam, 11,000 tickets says it is! Give me a break!

Posted by TheJim on October 26, 2007 at 8:38 a.m.

These redlight cameras should be trashed, and frankly, I would like to be one of the ones to trash them... This Redflex company is making an absolute killing for doing nothing at all. My ticket was a complete crock of poo. Yes, technically I ran the light, but I was turning right, there wasnt a car in sight and the light turned red just as I was making my turn. But that is like saying if we have cameras on random roads recording our speed, if you go 56 miles per hour in a 55 zone, you are guilty and you should get a ticket. Its Ridiculous.

Posted by beancntr29 on October 26, 2007 at 8:45 a.m.

I think the cameras are a good idea, but maybe the contract with this company needs to be reviewed and revised. I've seen several red light runners that have came close to causing accidents involving innocent people. I've came close to being hit from behind when I wouldn't run a red light because the guy behind me wanted to go through it.

Posted by NoWayJose on October 26, 2007 at 9:03 a.m.

Sure, everyone wants our roads to be safer - that's a given. But in flawed and poorly planned intersections, like the jumbled mess at I-40/Cedar Bluff/Peters, the red light busters are a cash cow. At least once a week I get behind a truck, can't see the light and while I wait at the line on Cedar Bluff 10 cars turning right on red fill that void. It's like an obstacle course designed to make people run lights. If the city and state really want our roads to stay safe they shouldn't have turned them into such a cluster****!

Posted by thedude on October 26, 2007 at 9:11 a.m.

Amen on that Cedar Bluff intersection. I'm no traffic engineer but I feel like an 8 year old could design a better intersection.

Posted by j_kaos on October 26, 2007 at 9:31 a.m.

These lights DO make mistakes. I got one of these tickets for making a perfectly legal right turn at a red light. It was cheaper for me to pay it than fight it. I agree, we need these cameras gone. It's a complete B*S* system.

Posted by olddon on October 26, 2007 at 9:42 a.m.

While I agree in principal with idea that people should not run red lights, this system is a license to steal. And no audit!!! Ridiculous.

Route66 said it so well: "Redflex keeps the records, I think it should be the city. Let the city collect the finds, and pay Redflex a quarterly payment."

Posted by Mithrasana on October 26, 2007 at 9:44 a.m.

A lot of people say they made a perfectly legal right turn on red. But how many of them come to a complete and total stop prior to reaching the white line, cautiously check to see if it's clear, and then make the turn? That's what it means to make a "perfectly legal" right turn on red.

Posted by firstpic on October 26, 2007 at 9:46 a.m.

Whatever happened to good ole fashion law enforcement for traffic laws. This is just another excuse for law enforcement not doing what doing their jobs. Yes there are busy, but how busy (facts of calls and response times) and if traffic safety is important the leadership in law enforcement should be forthcoming. The property losses, personal injuries and related cost of traffic safety (or the lack of it as we have in Knoxville)is enormous. Perhaps a little digging will reveal the real enforcment strategies, assuming the KPD has one. There is very little interest demonstrated by our local enforcement leadership.

Posted by BTJustice on October 26, 2007 at 10:09 a.m.

j_koas- WBIR:With 10 cameras over the course of a year, the city will make more than $1 million off violators and Redflex, the camera company, will take in another $1.5 million.

kittyfitts- What if your white Toyota Pick-Up was mistaken for BMW Z3 or vice versa? Would you then be classified as one of the 'too many idiots'?

You use your cell phone in traffic, and put on make-up while driving.

Posted by truthseeker on October 26, 2007 at 10:15 a.m.

Ban cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle and the red light violations would decrease markedly. The theory that red light cameras reduce traffic accidents at intersections is groundless. There are no statistics to prove that there are any less accidents at signalized intersections because of the "Big Brother" cameras placed there. The whole concept is another way for the government to fleece the public. Another tax in disguise because some salesman wined and dined a government official and got the sale!

If 11,000 tickets have been issued that simply means there were 11,000 potential accidents that just didn't happen to occur in that particular time period. What it doesn't mean is that the red light cameras prevented people from running red lights. What it does mean is that the government and the money sucking pseudo government empowered camera companies have found another way to generate revenue.

Anyone willing to compromise their individual freedoms in exchange for the pseudo security the government puts forth in their quest for ultimate control of every aspect of our lives deserve what they ultimately get.

Posted by thedude on October 26, 2007 at 10:20 a.m.

Amen truthseeker. All men are endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to run red lights.

Posted by truthseeker on October 26, 2007 at 10:23 a.m.

Christ, now BTJustice brings forth a link that informs us that Redflex, the pseudo government empowered camera owners and operators are an Australian company!

So that means 60 percent of the tax extracted from the red light violators in Knoxville goes out of the country! This is BS folks, pure BS that should never have been allowed to happen. If the city is going to operate these damned annoying all seeing eyes then the revenue generated from them should at least stay in the city!

What a crock!

Posted by truthseeker on October 26, 2007 at 10:34 a.m.

thedude, you got it! Just as they are endowed the right from birth to have one hand pressing a cell phone to their ear while endangering my life with their out of control hunk of iron!

Future generations of children will probably be born with one arm bent toward the left ear and the hand cupped in just the right attitude to hold a cell phone! Evolution is not a kind process. It adjusts to whatever the long term physical necessities dictate and I predict that eventually the human body will morph into an entity that has an electronic communicator built into the left side of every newborn's head.

Posted by Number9 on October 26, 2007 at 10:34 a.m.

The City was told before the cameras went up there were serious legal issues. Haslam and City Council choose to ignore those warnings.

Posted by rogerp1961 on October 26, 2007 at 10:35 a.m.

Dont pay the fines! They cant take your licence for it, and if enough tickets pile up, someone will get a clue.

Posted by NoWayJose on October 26, 2007 at 10:36 a.m.

Your right truthseeker, there are not enough statistics to support that red light cameras reduce accidents.. In fact, in Australia after 10 years of evaluation they have found that intersections with cameras are distinguished by a higher rate of crashes. BTW, Redflex is an Australian company - so you think they would know first hand about their products effectiveness.

thedude - funny

Posted by Waldo on October 26, 2007 at 10:44 a.m.

This sure is a big cash cow!! Why isn't the city administering this program? What business does a private company have administering the law? Don't they have a financial interest in issuing as many tickets as possible on the premis that people will pay rather than pay more to fight it? Who in law enforcement is reviewing these tickets? Why can't just anyone start a traffic law enforcement business and pay the city a finders fee? What is happening to the tickets generated by law enforcement running the lights? YES they do[not on a call]. Thank goodness someone has the guts to challenge big brother. By doing it in Fed court instead of state it will set a prescedence in law that will apply in all states who try to use civilians to enforce state laws. Whats next private companies serving search warrants? There are easier ways of stopping red light runners: increase the fines to $500, If you cause an accident $2000. Be assured with fines this high people would be more careful and hesitate before running a light. It appears that the cameras are not a very good deterrant judging by the number of tickets issued. I thought the purpose was to stop light runners not generate revenue.

Posted by OakRidgerX on October 26, 2007 at 11:01 a.m.

Big Brother isn't happy until the public is punished. Red Light cameras are used to furher punish the public. How about a camera in the back rooms of county offices?

What I don't get is that some think cameras is a way to make the public drive safely? If so, then why aren't these cameras taking pictures of people stopped at a green light?

Posted by BTJustice on October 26, 2007 at 11:03 a.m.

truthseeker

The Kangaroo's Thank You - from the bottom of their pouch. Thats alot of Fosters.... Goodday!

Posted by BTJustice on October 26, 2007 at 11:06 a.m.

OakRidgerX

"What I don't get is that some think cameras is a way to make the public drive safely? If so, then why aren't these cameras taking pictures of people stopped at a green light?"

Thats one "knock Out" of a point! Wish I'd thought of it, but I'll use it anyway. ;)

Posted by lester_phinney on October 26, 2007 at 11:15 a.m.

If a friend borrows my vehicle, runs a red light, and is pulled over by a human officer, he gets a ticket. If a friend borrows my vehicle and runs a red light monitored by a camera, I get the ticket. Obviously, the most simple minded amongst us can understand that this system is flawed. I get a bill in the mail, a letter of condemnation, if you will, for a crime I did not commit.

Let the cops enforce the law.

Posted by Waldo on October 26, 2007 at 11:26 a.m.

When was the last time you believed a Knox press release? This is what they want you to believe! Look up the meaning of propaganda.

Posted by TheJim on October 26, 2007 at 11:28 a.m.

BTJustice, I already agreed that I didnt stop, and I was able to keep all four tires on the ground when I made the right hand turn, and there were no cars coming. :) I paid my $50 bucks, so that gives me the right to complain. :)

For all of you who claim to never run red lights (even right on red), stop at yellow lights, etc, I hope I never get behind you on the road. There comes a point where "safe" driving becomes obstruction and a hazard.

Posted by TheJim on October 26, 2007 at 11:39 a.m.

MITH, If the city of knoxville cut out Redflex and handled the entire production on their own, there is NO WAY they would need any additional funding with the cash these cameras are bringing in. We already are in a heck of a lot of trouble on the roadway, just in case you didnt know.

Posted by OakRidgerX on October 26, 2007 at 11:40 a.m.

JimP, the money is punishment, what I would like to know is what is the lesson?

Is a picture the judge jury and executioner? If so, justice is no more than a snapshot away. That is plain lunacy if we are supposed to be judged by our peers.

Posted by fastsas on October 26, 2007 at 11:43 a.m.

"Dont pay the fines! They cant take your licence for it, and if enough tickets pile up, someone will get a clue."

No but you will be turned over to a collection agency. Happened to us. Lost in traffic court (expected), appealed and the citation was dismissed, probably becasue they did not want to fight a couple of technical issues (again expected and the wording on the citations was supposed to be changed). Even though there was a dissmissal order from the court, Redflex turned it over to a collection attorney and it took several phone calls and letters to get them to back off...even when they were sent a copy of the court order. Just a FYI.

Posted by iwish95 on October 26, 2007 at 11:51 a.m.

ok, fine......keep the redlights but if they are doing such a good job then we can just install them everywhere and can cut law enforcement because wont need them anymore out patroling our streets. We just need one to review all the infractions.

Posted by ktndude on October 26, 2007 at 11:53 a.m.

A intersection where there are 4-5 lanes going each way (which means it's a large intersection) and the lights are only yellow for 3 seconds? Give me a break. This is a big cash-cow for the city--well-designed to FORCE people into situations where the red-light has been run. If the city wants to fix this problem, it has to redesign the intersections or reconfigure the timing on the lights, not sit back and play Big Brother with it's cameras. Quit filming me, damn it!

Posted by lobster_to_go on October 26, 2007 at 12:02 p.m.

If you Google Redflex Traffic Systems you will find that this is an Australian private company. So, when you run a red light in Knoxville, you're helping pay dividends overseas. I wonder if "partnering" the City's police power with a foreign company so it can issue you a ticket, is Mayor Haslam's idea of upholding his oath of office?

Posted by alexander_gamble on October 26, 2007 at 12:41 p.m.

I got hit with a rolling-right-on-red ticket from the “Knoxville Red Light Photo Enforcement Program” which really chapped my posterior. I felt the ticket was unjustified but I didn’t want to gamble on the judge having a bad day and lose 67.50 on top of the 50 I already faced.

If the video link were still valid I’d post it so everyone could see the extremes they are going to in their quest for more money.

I agree with use of the cameras to punish true red-light violations. When they apply it to situations where the tape clearly shows there was no cross-traffic/failure-to-yield issue at a right-on-red turn lane then I have to suspect that they are more interested in the money than they are concerned about punishing drivers that are truly violating the law.

I do my best to avoid those lights whenever possible now.

Posted by BTJustice on October 26, 2007 at 1:18 p.m.

Right On Brother JimP!

"There comes a point where "safe" driving becomes obstruction and a hazard."

Another example is people driving 55 in the left lane. If you're blocking traffic-AT ANY SPEED IN ANY LANE you're wrong. Lead, follow or get the HECK out of the way!

(I sent in my $50 license to complain)

Mithrasana- "start-up costs are deferred over a period of time through Redflex." I'll put them in and maintain them for, say, $1,400,000 and spend my profits in Knox County.

I'd enen pay for kittykitts to learn to drive.

BTW, Anyone think the County would ever admit such a thing?

Posted by TheJim on October 26, 2007 at 1:28 p.m.

"The County" is a ridiculous mess! Everytime I see that wesel, Mike Ragsdale on the Television, all I hear is the Teacher from Charlie Brown. Anyone else ever notice that?

Posted by thedude on October 26, 2007 at 1:33 p.m.

What we need is a road hog law like other states have to keep the slow pokes out of the left lane.

Posted by lobster_to_go on October 26, 2007 at 2:11 p.m.

We should also consider there is NO public safety issue involved here -- just revenue (taxation). If these spy cameras actually change driver behavior, the Australian owners will take them down and move them where they will generate more money. If the cameras stay up for a year or two, it means they are still generating revenue and have FAILED to change driver behavior and make the intersection safer.

The City Fathers will tell you they are doing it for us -- in reality they are doing it for the corporations and moneyed interests that control government.

Posted by BTJustice on October 26, 2007 at 3:15 p.m.

Paone You've disappointed me again! And that 'it's so simple attitude' is starting to smell. Bad. "Personally, I don't mind that they are there. They've never caught me, and they never will."

Isn't it that way of thinking-attitude that's got us the politicians we have? As long as it doesn't effect you, huh?

I've never received a ticket that way, either, but how can you say you 'never will'?

However, it's nice to see one of your post where you limited your use of "I" to 4. If only 'We' were as smart as you...

OakridgerX said enough:What I don't get is that some think cameras is a way to make the public drive safely? If so, then why aren't these cameras taking pictures of people stopped at a green light?

Happy Friday, by the way!

Posted by BTJustice on October 26, 2007 at 3:21 p.m.

Paone- Nothing personal. We agree on the 'Recall' petition and likely, alot more. Your comments are welcome if ya feel the need.

Posted by ktndude on October 26, 2007 at 3:28 p.m.

Paone--a 3-second yellow light doesn't mean "hurry up", true enough. But it also doesn't mean "slow down and prepare to stop". What it means is "slam on your d*mn brakes or else you'll get a ticket". Don't get me wrong, I'm driving at the posted speed limit when I (and many other folks) have to do this. But Knoxville drivers have a bad habit of tailgating and I'm just waiting for the day I'm going to get rear-ended. Heck, sometimes it's even a cop who's riding my bumper. How many citizens get pulled over for tailgaiting (following too closely) I wonder...? I don't think very many people get ticketed for that until an actual accident occurs.

Posted by TheJim on October 26, 2007 at 4:01 p.m.

Good Post ktndude

Posted by ktndude on October 26, 2007 at 4:13 p.m.

JimP--I, too, received a ticket for rolling-right-on-red. The folks on left street and those opposite me also had a red light, and only those on my right had the green. The only difference between "me stopping" and "me rolling right" is $50 in the city's pocket.

Posted by ktndude on October 26, 2007 at 4:18 p.m.

If I slow down every time I'm tailgated, then I might never arrive at my destination . I know the 2-second rule in regards to tailgaiting and I don't hesitate to say that it happens to me EVERY SINGLE TIME I'm on the road. I especially don't feel safe slowing down in those situations if there's a semi-truck on my tail.

Posted by Waldo on October 26, 2007 at 5:26 p.m.

Fact: the camera is not active until the light is red! I don't have a problem with the camera, just the way it is administered. I would have loved to had a camera at the intersection of 321 and 129 at 5pm yesterday. 5 cars in the southbound turn lane to 129 ran the light after the thru light changed to green. I know because I had to do a panic stop to prevent an accident. Heart rate and bp returned to normal 12hrs later. I sure wish a camera had been there. The city of Maryville would have made a lot of money. Stupidity like this is what makes cameras necessary. I know the subject was Knoxville, but Murvil is just an extension of Knoxville.

Posted by truthseeker on October 26, 2007 at 5:47 p.m.

Paone, I don't believe that accidents actually occur because of people going through yellow lights....unless of course there is a jackrabbit waiting to go the other way that is watching your light. It's a judgment call on my part when to brake or when to go on through on yellow. If I have time to stop I will, if I don't I won't sling the dog against the dash and dump the groceries all over the floorboard just because a light turns yellow when I am too close to the intersection to stop. I also don't want that cell phone user that is yakking on the phone behind me to run up my arse! I will accelerate if I decide to go through a yellow because I want to clear the intersection as quickly as possible. Besides, there is a slight "safety" delay in the light turning green the opposite way when the yellow goes to red.

And folks, if you see my big 4 wheel drive Dodge Ram Quad Cab coming through the intersection on yellow you best not try to jump the light until you are sure the light is green your way.

I pass through a couple of the red light cameras several times a week and see people getting tickets every once in a while. But each time I have seen the camera flash the people were actually running a red light, usually making a left turn in front of me on the tail end of a line of vehicles. And they were either on a cell phone or look doped up, or they have that blank stare that says they are not paying any attention to what they are doing for whatever reason, mostly I guess because they are in a terrible hurry to get nowhere in spite of everything and everyone else!

Posted by truthseeker on October 26, 2007 at 5:55 p.m.

Good rule, leave early, get there on time without breaking any traffic laws. I like that. Now if everyone else would just follow the same rule......

Posted by BTJustice on October 26, 2007 at 6:19 p.m.

Paone- "Is that not a valid reason?"

No, it's not.

"If everyone were as "smart" as I was, though, we'd have all been doomed a long time ago. :p" I shouldn't have posted that - We'd be really in trouble if everyone thought like me...

It's not that simple and "Never say never" is what I was thinking. You didn't read my link or notice what OakRidgerX said. You seem to be a good guy but thats not to say I agree with your "As long as it doesn't effect me" undertones. I stand behind my wishes for EVERYONE to have a safe and restful weekend!

It really is that simple. Don't run the red light. If the light is red, don't go through the intersection. Seriously, how difficult is that?

Posted by BTJustice on October 26, 2007 at 6:28 p.m.

Paone- "In the event of tailgating, it's probably best to just slow down anyway. Most people tend to back off once you slow down enough"

Reference, Please?

Posted by Route66 on October 26, 2007 at 7:30 p.m.

Mithrasana,

I agree with you on all points except one, moving to the middle of the intersection to turn left. It's legal in Tennessee and several states to enter the intersection to turn left when the light is green. If the light turns red, you may complete the left turn.

An intersection without a turn signal (Broadway & Old Broadway) it requires this move or you can spend the entire rush hour there blocking traffic behind you. I have made left turns using this procedure in view of police many times and never been stopped.

It's legal, look it up in the driver handbook.

Posted by olddon on October 26, 2007 at 7:42 p.m.

I think everyone agrees that "running a red light" is hazardous to health (yourself and others) and should not be condoned. But this system the City contracted for is laden with fraud.

Apparently the city does not audit the returns but merely takes Redflex's word for the number of tickets issued and the amount of money collected, at least that was the testimony in court when the city official said they had no records.

Think about it folks, no audit of the books, wow!! a liscense to steal!! olddon

Posted by BainxGriffith on October 26, 2007 at 8:21 p.m.

To show you how brainwashed we the people really are, I have a father in law who is retired from ORNL, a scientist, engineer, conservative, veteran and he actually said that he thinks cameras at intersections are a GREAT thing.

The brainwashing of America is almost complete.

I rest my case

Posted by lobster_to_go on October 26, 2007 at 10:44 p.m.

Griffith -- you are right on target. The reliable, just, humane, US government has contracted out its police power in Iraq to Blackwater...... any of you other law-and-order-do-gooders consider what might happen if Blackwater is the low bidder for police "protection" in Ktown? Thankfully, that is unlikely. But it is a very dangerous precedent to mix private business with police power of the state!!!

Posted by wlongworth on October 26, 2007 at 11:17 p.m.

The argument for 'not running the red lights' would be a valid one IF all red lights were set to change at the same speed. The ones with the cameras associated with them DO change quicker than ones that don't. I called the city in regards to the ones at Cedar Bluff and Lovell Road - both of which nearly got me killed. When there are large trucks turning under the lights, it inhibits your sight of the lights. Now, I know some smart-a$$ is going to say I was following too close, but is it feasible to drive behind a truck at a distance where you can see the lights behind a truck while at Cedar Bluff? Try it - you'll be surprised. I have sat at them and I have timed them repeatedly and there IS a difference. The city states that they are all the same time limit. That is a flat out lie. It is yet another scheme, by the city of Knoxville, to get money from the people. It costs either way, so why fight it? Utilize these cameras for actual crime-fighting and solving accident scenes.

Posted by southknox on October 27, 2007 at 9:52 p.m.

I am not worried about the people who run a redlight by a fraction of a second...its the ones who never even see that it is red I am worried about. Look around a little and count how many idiots are talking on the phone and driving erratically. Just count them in one day and it will make you realize cell phones are the biggest problem next to DUI. Next time someone cuts you off or almost hits you, chances are they are talking on the phone.


Man accused of shooting red-light cam caught by other cameras - NOT

By: Brian Holt, Photographer
By: Yvette Martinez, Reporter
WBIR TV
11/26/2007

A $50 citation could multiply into a penalty including jail time and thousands of dollars in fines and damages, after a Knoxville man told police he shot a red-light camera to avoid a ticket.

Forty-seven-year-old Clifford Edward Clark III is in jail, charged with felony vandalism and reckless endangerment. Police say he shot and disabled the red light camera on Broadway near I-640 early Sunday morning.

Redflex is the company that maintains and installs Knoxville's red light cameras. They have more than a thousand cameras in 20 states, and they say they've never had one shot at with a hunting rifle.

"We had officers that were in the area. They overheard gunshots," KPD spokesperson Darrell DeBusk said. "They started to investigate, and that's when they found a vehicle leaving a business and trying to leave really quickly."

Surveillance video from Pittman Automotive's parking lot cameras show officers stop a silver mini-van driven by Clark shortly before 2:00 am on Sunday.

"They also found out that he had a rifle. They found 3 shell casings in the parking lot," DeBusk said. "They found a spent shell casing in the gun. They also found the red light camera had been shot four times."

According to police reports, investigators found a Ruger M77, Mack II 30-60 Rifle, and a new box of bullets with four missing. Police say one of the bullets went clear through the camera's casing.

"You've got to think about the danger that he put the public in," DeBusk said. "He was shooting a rifle at a camera with cars driving by."

When questioned, Clark told police a reason he'd shoot the camera.

"He made a statement that he was upset about getting a red light camera ticket," DeBusk said.

Investigators say they have no record of Clark ever getting a citation from a red light camera. However, records are only current up to November 20th. If Clark was caught by the cameras after the 20th, that information will not be turned over to Knoxville Police until later this week. If cited by a camera, he would have been fined $50.

"The penalty he's going to pay is going to be far greater than the $50 citation," DeBusk said.

Meanwhile, a repairman worked on the camera on Monday. A Redflex spokesperson says it should be operational Monday night.

Christina Weeks with Redflex says there are actually 3 cameras in each unit. Weeks says the damage to the unit is extensive, but she doesn't have a dollar amount yet. Redflex will pay to repair the camera, but those costs could be passed on to Clark if he is convicted.

Clark is in jail on an $8,000 bond.

Comments

Hey man... nice shot!
-Knuckles

Hey when you get out of jail, how bout finishing the cameras off in the other parts of town. YOU ARE MY HERO!!!!
-stick it to tha man

$50 buys a lot of bullets.
-IceBergTYS

I hate those cameras. Hopefully more people will shoot them out. More power to you man!
-Jo Momma Kicks Asz

What percent of the violations are for right turns on red?
-selfopiate

YOU GO! GET ALL THE CAMERAS!
-ha ha ha

I hope someone else comes and finishes the job on all of the other ones. They are a money grab only.
-TnHunter

Way to go Clifford!! Now can you shoot the one at Clinton Highway and Merchants? You are awesome!!!
-Santa Claus

Great idea! Shoot them all and we can spend even MORE tax dollars replacing them.
-Knox Girl

Good for him! America needs more men like this one. We are sitting right back and letting liberty erode, Thanks Cliff I hope this is your first offense.
-Tennessee Jed

Way to go! One down, a bunch more to go. Just remember the silencer next time though.
-little me

Good for him!!!!!!!
-Jim

GO VOLS! -BAD BOYS BAD BOYS. Thank goodness Dick Cheney was not in this hunting party. He may have winged a few citizens.
-DickCheney

Get your "FREE CLIFFORD" bumper sticker now.
-Cocke County Native

Kind of funny in a scary redneck way.
-Kind of funny

Police said this is the first incident of someone shooting one of the devices installed at 15 intersections across the city. Offenders pay a $50 fine, but the violation is not entered on a person's driving record." Am I reading this right? A person can fire off a salvo of bullets at public property in the city and incur only a $50 fine and no record? That's what it says. I'm guessing that the two sentences should not have been put together. The second sentence refers to the fine for running a red light. But, hypothetically, a person reading this could be swayed to take his rifle out into the city and ping public property... or worse. "Why, it's only a $50 fine if you get caught. No big deal." C'mon News-Sentinel editors, at least TRY to look like you're doing your job.
-wewhite

In the very famous word of Elmer Fudd........"Be vewwwy vewwwwy quiet I.m hunting wed light twaffic cameras"
-ugloc35

The best part about Redflex robocops is that 50 KPD cops were terminated to pay for them. Cool.
-piratenewstv

These cameras should be outlawed. It is just another way to make money. I am suprised that this has not happened before now.
Nellie

I'm surprised this hasn't happened before.
Elrod

that is so awesome I GIVE YOU MUCH PROPS TO BAD YOU GOT BUSTED,I PASS THROUGH THAT SAME LIGHT TWICE A DAY. I THINK THATS THE COOLEST THING EVER
yarbrough

Haven't you people heard? There was another shooter on the grassy knoll....Clark is a patsy!
Knuckles

"there are actually 3 cameras in each unit." Thank you. We have taken note and will do our best to hit all three next time.
uh huh

Dang...too bad he didn't take out 5 or 6 of them before he got caught! He's a nutjob but It makes me happy that he did it. Come on folks....many of you have dreamed of doing it too! Even if it he had not of gotten caught, they have millions to pour back into fixing them. Each camera makes big bucks.
Me too

Lets save our 50.00 we would pay for running red lights and raise money for clarks court case and bond. Then we when get him out of jail he can reload and go on a shooting spree. No more redlight cameras. Maybe then redflex will start having to dish out some of that money they have been rolling in by forcing these illegal cameras down our throats. BTW, I have not run a redlight, I have never gotten a ticket for running one of these, nor do I plan on it. However, I hate feeling paranoid everytime I make a turn that the darn things will take my picture if I cross the line by one centimeter. How about all the thousands that KPS has made off the redlight cameras be returned to the general budget to pay the officers pension plan and reduce the taxes and drop the wheel tax. Oh yeah, I forgot, commissioners need another lobster dinner, my bad.
Clarks attorney

so as long as you don't sign anything they can't do anything to you?..or if you do happen to go to court they can't make you pay because your accuser is a camera and therefore cannot appear in court against you? Just makin sure that i understand you correctly.
camera haterz inc

Clifford is a hero! Now, how do we donate for his defense?
Stephen

I understand his motivation but I mostly disagree with his method. However I would be willing to throw a few $$ toward his bond
wait a minute

ROFL> I used to have a buddy who got parking tickets all the time... He never paid them.. he threw them away.. his defense was.. I never got them... He was never prosecuted.... LOL!
Astonished

I have gotten a ticket on Clinton Hwy. I thought I had time and didn't. It cost me $50.00. I was at fault not the light, the company that provides the cams, or the city of Knoxville. One good thing from this tho. Alot of people are reading it and my cam's at my shop caught it on tape..... lol
Wes Pittman

Wes....shhhh! Haven't you heard? People are shooting at "cams." Dude.
John

It amazes me that some of you safety Nazis could support these cameras. This guy is a hero for the people. Big brother is sticking his nose in every aspect of our lives. Now they are talking about installing cameras to catch speeders in Knoxville. If they do I hope they catch off duty police officers & traffic court judges which are the biggest speed viloators. Personally, I hope shooting out traffic cams becomes a trend in this country !
Vipguy

Another good way to beat any kind of traffic ticket is to tell the judge you want a jury trial.You have a right to one & it makes the judge mad as hell lol. It's time that people start standing up to the government which is no better then the mafia. They practice extortion & racketeering against their own citizens on a daily bases.
Freedom Fighter

I hate it when people just sit there and look at the window when the light turns green. Then they move foward just a little while the third car behind it stops because the light turns red again. I can see how alot of people can get peaved when idiots drive like this. It's like they are the only ones in the world (them and their cell phones.) I say when a light turns green and when people just sit there, they should get a ticket too. I'll bet the county would make even more on these idiots. Either drive right, get out of the way or stay home. Think I may suggest this to some higher sources. Maybe running red lights won't be the only thing to look for.
Clarks backbone

I wholeheartedly agree with you! There are so many "idiots" on the road these days. It's just as dangerous to drive too slowly as it is to speed. And I think there are reasons when running a red light may be necessary. What if I ran the red light at Broadway because it was an emergency I get to St. Mary's hospital? Yeah, I'm sure I can fight it with no problem in court, but there you have it - a day off from work trying to fight the system. A cop would have noticed I had an emergency and (hopefully) would have assisted me (doubt it here in Knoxville though - the cops are not that helpful). You know my whole problem with the red light cameras is that they are just that....."cameras". They can't make a human decision based on the current situation.
“Insanity Rules”

Everyone meet at the 640 interchange near foodcity at 5pm..we will hold hands, sing songs and protest THE MAN steppin on our rights.
wait a minute

NOT COOL GUYS...I WAS THERE AT 5 AND NO ONE ELSE SHOWED UP. I GOT A TICKET FOR IMPEDING TRAFFIC!!! WHO'S GONNA PAY THAT??? NOT COOL...NOT AT ALL :(
wait a minute

THE FACT IS HE DIDNT KILL ANYONE HE DID THE COMUNITY A FAVOR .NOW IS THE TIME TO STOP LETTING OUR VOICES BE HEARD AND TAKE ACTION.(BOLT ACTION)WHY DONT SOMEBODY JUST TAKE A SAW AND CUT THE CAMERAS DOWN SINCE THEY ARE WORTH SO MUCH MONEY.WHERE IS OUR FREEDOM THAT FORE FATHERS DIED FOR? THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO TAKE IT ALL AWAY.
EX CON

If you get hit in the rear while stopping because of fear of a ticket sent to you by robocop, Can you make that stand in court? And who is at fault?
wes

I'm watching! I'm always watching. As you accept these cameras, more will follow.... The thought police can't be far behind.
Big Brother

good for him...i dont think he should have fired a weapon that in public like that but those cameras arent there to save lives they are there to bring in more money....thse cameras are for the most part an incvasion of privacy...whats next a camera that will take your picture and if your not wearing a seatbelt give you a ticket? i think its chicken sh*t of kpd and a sad way to bring in more money under the "guise" of its helping in public safety...a cop is nothing more than a criminal with a get out of jail free card most of the time...there are very few "good"police officers and lawmakers..
junior

OK, fine you want cameras? That's great, but then why do I have to waste gas at a red light for 2 minutes when there is no traffic in the other direction? If the cameras are smart enough to catch people running red lights they should be smart enough to cause preemptive green lights.
ok fine

This guy may have done something we all wish we could do, however say he missed and the three shots didn't hit the camera? what or WHO would end up on the other end of those bullets? That is why we have laws and law enforcement. But don't get me wrong I do really hate those cameras, the flashig light seems to annoy me at night. The use of a fire arm is just too dangerous.
confused

No matter what, He is still a good shot....
wes

Well, evidently he's a pretty good shot....lol. As far as the one that just commented about what a great job our police are doing, I'm not sure where YOU live, but it must not be in east TN. Go back up north and take the cameras with you!....hahahaha
Jerry

i wonder when he gets out of jail if he would want to go to the shooting range with me.
LoL

BANG BANG HE SHOT IT DOWN, BANG BANG THE CAMERA HIT THE GROUND, BANG BANG CLIFFORD CLARK SHOT THE CAMERA DOWN.....
Navy_GF

We need more people like this... Down with big brother and all that jazz... lol It isnt isolated to us at least.
Joustin

our police do a great job?! look at the surrounding counties here in east tn and see the lawmen in trouble..a state trooper getting a blowjoB on the clock lawmen shooting each otheretc etc yeah a real good job in make suring society progresses forward.... "so sad" you're a nutcase
junior

Good Job!!
Dingy

I was rear ended when I stopped in order to avoid running the red light. The person behind me also stopped. However the person behind her failed to stop and ran into both of us. Then a few minutes later a truck traveling at between 55 and 60 miles an hour in a 45 MPH speed zone rear ended me again. Only this time totaling my car. These light are a nuisance and yes I for one can see them actually causing several people to get killed trying to avoid getting caught by the cameras by stopping too short too fast. What I truly find amazing is that every traffic light in Tennessee has a delay between the light turning red in one direction and it turning green in the other direction. Then there is always the legal left turn when you pull out into the intersection and wait for the light to change and the on coming traffic to come to a complete stop before you execute a left turn. That was nearly 2 years ago and you know what? I still am without a vehicle. The person who hit me the second time was covered by All State and they paid me a nickel on the dollar for what damages that driver did to my car. It is not worth it. If you stop you run the risk of getting hit and having to live without a vehicle for a couple of years while you recover both financially and physically from the accident. If you don't stop you end up having to loose a day's work and getting hit with a $50.00 fine and court costs. I also disagree with shooting out the cameras when a little gasoline in a bottle will do a much better job.
-Jim Hayden


Police: Man shot red-light camera after it shot him first

By Don Jacobs
Knoxville News Sentinel
December 12, 2007

A Knoxville man accused of disabling a red light camera with a hunting rifle had been captured running the same traffic light five hours earlier, police said this morning.

Clifford E. Clark III, 47, of Wildercliff Lane in North Knox County is charged with felony vandalism and reckless endangerment. He is accused of shooting the red light camera at Broadway and Interstate 640 about 2 a.m. Nov. 25.

Just hours prior to the shooting, at 9:11 p.m. Nov. 24, that same red light camera recorded a picture of Clark allegedly running the red light at Broadway and I-640, Knoxville Police Department Capt. Gordon Catlett said this morning.

Catlett said KPD officers reviewed the alleged infraction and on Nov. 30 issued Clark a notice of violation. If Clark does not contest the violation, he must pay a $50 fine by Dec. 31, Catlett said.

Clark was arrested after officers patrolling around Broadway heard gunshots. When they investigated, they saw Clark leaving a business parking lot along Broadway and stopped the van he was driving. On the floorboard of the van officers found a .30-06 hunting rifle.

The red light camera had been shot three times and was out of commission for two days. Since it was first activated in September 2006, the camera at Broadway and I-640 has recorded nearly 7,000 incidents of vehicles disregarding the red light, police said.

At the time of Clark's arrest, police said Clark had never been cited for running a red light by the camera system. However, there is a delay of several days from the time the camera snaps the infraction to the time KPD officers review the incident and decide a violation occurred.

More details as they develop online and in Thursday's News Sentinel.

Posted by BTJustice on December 12, 2007 at 11:11 a.m. "..the camera at Broadway and I-640 has recorded nearly 7,000 incidents of vehicles .."

Thats alot of $$ for the Australian's and about 1/2 alot for the County!

Now we hear the camera shot first? Whoda thunkit?

Posted by BTJustice on December 12, 2007 at 11:13 a.m.

7K seems high. I bet it photo's 'Yellow Light Runners' too..

Posted by selfopiate on December 12, 2007 at 11:52 a.m.

How many are right turn on red?

Posted by lester_phinney on December 12, 2007 at 11:58 a.m.

I’m just not feeling the pain for the government on this one. They are charging him with a felony? Come on. They are going to show him, aren’t they? It’s one thing to throw your car at someone in a drunken rage. It’s another thing to temporarily disable a money camera, I mean a traffic camera (sorry).

Posted by zoso1759 on December 12, 2007 at 12:13 p.m.

I recently viewed my traffic light citation on the internet and was cited for turning red on right without stopping which showed my break lights on and I made a quick stop and go. After fighting this in court I ended up paying the 67.50 plus the 50.00 for the ticket. There is NO way to win you just have to pay.

Posted by IceBergTYS on December 12, 2007 at 12:18 p.m.

You win by shooting out the cameras without getting caught! Perhaps Al-Qaieda should be recruited to wage jihad on the red light cameras. Only then would their terrorism be justified.

Posted by j_kaos on December 12, 2007 at 1:01 p.m.

This guy is a hero!

Posted by Paone on December 12, 2007 at 1:42 p.m.

On the lighter side, this is one of the funniest headlines I have seen in a long time. Very clever, Mr. Jacobs. :)

Posted by pcrary on December 12, 2007 at 1:46 p.m.

$350,000 ($50x7000) from one camera in 15 months. That's $23,000+ per month. Not bad from one camera.

Posted by holeinone on December 12, 2007 at 2:06 p.m.

The $$ cameras are just that, MONEY CAMERAS, THEY ADD NOT ONE OUNCE OF SAFETY! THE CITY OFFICIALS THAT APPROVED THE $$ CAMERAS, ARE AS BAD, NO, THEY ARE WORSE THAN THE COUNTY COMMISIONERS! EVERYONE KNOWNS ABOUT THOSE CLOWNS, WHICH INCLUDE TWO DUMD ARROGANT USED CAR SALESMAN AND SCOOBIE!

Posted by pcrary on December 12, 2007 at 2:13 p.m.

Taking my math further, if we guestimate 30 days for each month (I know Feb has less and other have 31, but just humor me) and divide the $23,333 by 30, that's over $777 citations per day from one camera (about 15 violations a day).

Posted by Paone on December 12, 2007 at 2:19 p.m.

Pcrary:

That's assuming each incident results in a citation. Quite often, the camera goes off and no one gets a ticket.

It'd be nice if we knew HOW often, though. Anyone out there in Netland happen to know where we can find stats on these cameras?

Posted by pcrary on December 12, 2007 at 2:24 p.m.

Paone: The 15 violations per day is accuate because you take 7000 violations / 15 months / 30 days = about 15. I guess the way to determine how many resulted in an actual citation would be to take how much revenue was generated during the same period and do the same math.

Even if only half resulted in citations, that's still almost $400 per day for one camera. How many cameras are operating currently?

Posted by come_on_choose on December 12, 2007 at 2:26 p.m.

Sorry to rain on you bean counters parade but it doesn't work as easy as you seem to think. knoxnews.com/news/2007/apr/25/final-city-red-light-camera-working/

"Under the RedFlex contract, the company gets 85 percent of collected fines up to $4,500 per camera per month. Fines paid after the $4,500 benchmark are split 50-50. All court costs assessed for late payments or losing an appeal of the ticket go directly to the city, Catlett said."

The best part is RedFlex is an Australian Company!
www.redflex.com.au

Posted by pcrary on December 12, 2007 at 2:43 p.m.

Come_on_choose: That story confirmed my calculations. It says that in March 2007, revenues were $1,249,901 for the 14 cameras (the 15th had not been turned on yet). So $1,249,901 / 7 months / 14 cameras / 30 days = approx $425. If we divide that by $50 its about 8.5 violations that resulted in a fine per day.

Just be thankful you are not paying the San Diego red light fine of $321 per violation.

Posted by lester_phinney on December 12, 2007 at 2:51 p.m.

Poane – Relax, he shot a camera, not a little girl. Felony, No. Make him buy another camera out of his own pocket as restitution and have him rake some leaves at the courthouse for punishment. I don’t recall it being illegal to pull the trigger on your gun inside the city limits.

Posted by lester_phinney on December 12, 2007 at 2:51 p.m.

Poane – Relax, he shot a camera, not a little girl. Felony, No. Make him buy another camera out of his own pocket as restitution and have him rake some leaves at the courthouse for punishment. I don’t recall it being illegal to pull the trigger on your gun inside the city limits.

Posted by come_on_choose on December 12, 2007 at 3:03 p.m.

15/85 split til $4500 is reached.
IF they base the $4500 on the 85% the company makes:

85% of a $50 dollar ticket is $42.50.
It takes 106 tickets per month to move to the 50/50 split.
7000/15 =467mo or 15.5 per day

6.625 days to make the $4500 and move to the 50/50 level.

30 - 6.625 = 23.375 days of 50/50 or 350 tickets @ $25 each = $8375.63 per month.

$8375.63 per MONTH, per CAMERA-IF it's based on the $4500 being made up on the 85% paid to RedFlex.

*court costs assessed for late payments or losing an appeal of the ticket go to the City.

Posted by come_on_choose on December 12, 2007 at 3:12 p.m.

pcrary
The article I referenced ?
"resulted in a total of $1,249,901 in collected fines and court costs. Of that amount, Catlett said the city received $437,403."

$1,249.901 may have been collected but most of it goes to RedFlex. It mentions the City received $437,403. Thats right, less than half AFTER court cost and late penalty's.

This isn't and never will be "San Diego" so stop comparing cost in other places to here, please. New York City has a City Income Tax, too, but we don't. Be glad you're here, just in time for local politics at it's best. ;)

Posted by guitarch882000 on December 12, 2007 at 3:14 p.m.

Virginia DOT just released a revised study with lots more details of the statewide red light camera program. Below is a chart to summarize the results. Safety or Money? Answer is obvious.

Highlights:
Accidents +29%
Injuries +18%
Rear enders +42%
Angle crashes +20%

Key Statistic:
CityRear EndAngleInjuryTotal
Arlington+139%+53%+89%+65%
Fairfax City+10%-35%-5%-7%
Fairfax County+40%+8%+6%+23%
Falls Church+136%-15%+79%+38%
Vienna+64%-6%+59%+25%
Average+42%+20%+18%+29%

Source: The Impact of Red Light Cameras on Crashes in Virginia
Virginia Transportation Research Council, 7/5/2007

Posted by come_on_choose on December 12, 2007 at 3:21 p.m.

guitarch882000
Post Of The Day.
You really threw a strike on that one!
EVERYONE should read this including the gimps at UT who have been commissioned for the survey for additional cams.

Everyone who's ever said "Well if you don't want a ticket obey the law!" can read it and weep.

Atta Boy.
This needs to be mentioned to everyone who drives.
I've noticed crazy behavior at the locations by 'doo gooders' trying to obey the law by locking the breaks for a yellow. It seems we have many of those folks. TOO many.

Nice post!

Posted by Duke on December 12, 2007 at 3:49 p.m.

As a certain famous commentator says, wait until you hear the rest of the story. The red light cameras are only the beginning. Officials are already looking to install the SPEED LIMIT cameras. If you've ever traveled to Europe, then you know how these puppies work. You creep just a tinsy bit over the posted speed limit, and just like the red light cameras, you've been had. These began in Germany back in 1961, so they've been around for sometime and I'm surprised the US Gestapo hasn't jumped on this money maker. The problem in Europe is that you have NO SPEED LIMIT, then all of a sudden 100 clicks, then 60 clicks, and it's all without warning. Sort of like some areas of Knoxville, come to think of it. You must learn to drive defensively against all the unlicensed, former DUI, no insurance, idiots on the road, plus the red light, that catches you on yellow or right turn on red, and SOON, the wretched speed limit cameras. It's not about PUBLIC SAFETY, voters, it's about greed and growing government programs that yell, feed me Seymour, feed me!!! This time, instead, City Hall has become, The Little Shop of Horrors!!!!!

Posted by piratenewstv on December 12, 2007 at 4:31 p.m.

"Redflex Group is based in South Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Redflex Holdings Limited was listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in January 1997. Redflex Traffic Systems Inc has contracts with more then 130 USA cities, and is the largest provider of digital red light and speed enforcement services in North America."
Redflex.com.AU

18 US Code § 2381. Treason.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

"'Enterprise' means any individual, corporation, or other legal entity, and it includes illicit as well as licit enterprises, AND GOVERNMENTAL, as well as other, entities."
—Tennessee Code 39-12-203, Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations RICO Act

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment."
-Justice Tolman, Supreme Court of the State of Washington, Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147

Posted by piratenewstv on December 12, 2007 at 4:32 p.m.

"It is extremely easy to beat this type of ticket in court. Your easiest defense is to simply throw the ticket away. If it does not come with a return receipt that requires a signature, there is no proof that you actually got the ticket and they cannot prosecute you on that. What the legal system wants you to do is just send in the fine and not ask any questions. This can be a big money maker for some communities. One other form of defense to utilize on your behalf is the fact that when you are accused in court you must be faced by your accuser. Obviously the computer cannot appear in court as a defense method for the prosecution. Also, you do not have to identify yourself as the driver of the vehicle because it would violate your sixth amendment rights against self incrimination."
-Norman G. Fernandez, attorney at law, and Jes Beard, attorney at law in Chattanooga, Tennessee, "How to Beat a Speeding Ticket - Photo RADAR"
http://jesbeard.com/s11.htm

Knoxville Code, Section 8-1. Issuance of process.
The city judge shall issue process on the complaint. He shall try no case until process has been regularly sued out, served and returned.

Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 4, Service of Process.
(10) Service by mail of a summons and complaint upon a defendant may be made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's attorney or by any person authorized by statute. Such person shall send, postage prepaid, a certified copy of the summons and a copy of the complaint by registered return receipt or certified return receipt mail to the defendant. Service by mail shall not be the basis for the entry of a judgment by default unless the record contains a return receipt showing personal acceptance by the defendant or by persons designated by Rule 4.04 or statute.

Tennessee Rules of Evidence.
Rule 602. Lack of personal knowledge.
A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness's own testimony.
Advisory Commission Comments. Basic to relevancy concepts is that a witness must know about the subject matter of testimony. This is the familiar requirement of first-hand knowledge.

Tennessee Rules of Evidence.
Rule 803. Hearsay exceptions.
(6) Records of Regularly Conducted Activity.
Advisory Commission Comments. Police reports of traffic accidents are inadmissible under T.C.A. § 55-10-114(b) and T.R.Evid. 803(8).

Posted by pcrary on December 12, 2007 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That whole sixth amendment idea does not work. If you try to fight it, the police will send in their red-light camera guy to speak for the camera. Essentially (s)he becomes your accusor because (s)he saw you run the red on the camera...several days later.

Posted by piratenewstv on December 12, 2007 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Okay sheeple, time to WAKE UP!!! Throw these robocop tickets in the trash where they belong. Same for parking tickets, both of which only profit private corporations. If you really want to be a free American, do the same with vehicle slave registration contract, and your driver walking license internal passport contract extorted at gunpoint by police state death squads. Duress voids all contracts, as does fraud. We have a Constitutionally guaranteed God-given Natural right to travel by any means, which is a right folks have had for 1,000s or millions of years, until 1930s when the communist Manifesto was implemented in USA for "driver license" contracts. THP and court clerks have sold fake ID "driver certificates" in Spanish language to 300,000 illegal aliens, who are never required to have "driver licenses" nor ID in TN. Equal Protection doctrine under the 14th Amendment to US Constitution requires that if illegal aliens get to drive without licenses and ID, then everyone gets that right.

We also need to get good folks on this guy's jury, to exercise their Constitutional right to jury nullification. All it takes is one person to say NO, to lawfully nullify any law.
Citizen's Rulebook

Posted by come_on_choose on December 12, 2007 at 5:10 p.m.

pcrary but the insurance companies deem them to be better

Could you please reference that please? A link will be fine.

Posted by piratenewstv on December 12, 2007 at 5:19 p.m.

Insurance corporations only pay out 5% (FIVE percent) of their revenues in claims. That leaves 95% net profit, so their executives can pay themselves $200,000 PER WEEK salaries PER PERSON, as lawyer Ralph Nader reported on CSPAN. Warren Buffet, CEO of GEICO Government employees Insurance Corporation paid himself a ONE YEAR personal salary of $30-BILLION TAX FREE this year.

Note that car insurance is a voluntary private contract, and all such traffic tickets are frivolous civil lawsuits:

Tennessee Code §55-12-106. Exceptions to requirement of security and revocation - Additional acceptable proof of financial security.

The requirements of security and revocation contained in this chapter shall NOT apply to:

(5) Any operator or owner of a motor vehicle involved in an accident wherein no injury or damage was caused to the person or property of anyone other than such operator or owner;

(7) Any owner or operator who shall submit, on or before the date of revocation, proof satisfactory to the commissioner of acceptance of liability for the accident and an agreement concerning the payment of damages satisfactory to all parties claiming damages.

(8) Vehicles owned by the United States, this state or any political subdivision of this state or any municipality therein, or to the operator of any such vehicle so owned, when such vehicle is involved in an accident;

(9) Any vehicle owned and operated by a carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the department of safety or the interstate commerce commission;

(13) An owner or operator of any vehicle where there is no physical contact with another vehicle or object or person, unless a judgment has been obtained;

(14) A driver or owner of a vehicle who has submitted to the commissioner on or before the date of revocation notarized releases executed by all parties who have previously filed claims with the department as a result of the accident;

(15) Any person who has obtained a discharge in bankruptcy that discharged all claims against the person because of the accident listed in the petition;


How to Kill Robocops

"It is extremely easy to beat this type of ticket in court. Your easiest defense is to simply throw the ticket away. If it does not come with a return receipt that requires a signature, there is no proof that you actually got the ticket and they cannot prosecute you on that. What the legal system wants you to do is just send in the fine and not ask any questions. This can be a big money maker for some communities. One other form of defense to utilize on your behalf is the fact that when you are accused in court you must be faced by your accuser. Obviously the computer cannot appear in court as a defense method for the prosecution. Also, you do not have to identify yourself as the driver of the vehicle because it would violate your sixth amendment rights against self incrimination."
-Norman G. Fernandez, attorney at law, and Jes Beard, attorney at law in Chattanooga, Tennessee, How to Beat a Speeding Ticket - Photo RADAR
jesbeard.com/s11.htm

Note that you can ignore all parking tickets for the same reason. Felony criminal charges have already been filed against "judge" John Rosson, including him keeping an illegal Top Secret court docket of 200,000 annual tickets against the 160,000 residents of Knoxville, This felony complaint includes mayor Victor Ashe and KPD chief Phil Keith:
piratenews.org/affidavit-criminal-complaint13jun05.htm

How to Beat a Speeding Ticket - Free Ebook download by attorney Norman G. Fernandez

How Any Idiot Can Beat a RADAR Speeding Ticket - Free video by Pastor Rick Strawcutter


Death of a Robocop Spy Scamera
The Gitmo Gatsos: Bullets, Firebombs and Thermite


Pirate News TV