I received a surprise in the mail this week. Apparently wife's car was caught in a school zone speed camera on 6/2/10. I'm the registered owner so I am the recipient of the ticket by default.
I'm trying to figure out the best way to deal with this. I know it will not go on my record, but out of principle I want to fight the damn thing since speed cameras are just another form of extortion.
I think I have 2 ways to defend myself against this ticket.
1) Site IRLJ 2.2 (d) since the infraction happened on 6/2/10 but the ticket was not even issued until 6/10/10. Wouldn't this be the same as if the officer didn't file the ticket in the 5 days allowed?
2) As you can see from the photo the car was speeding, but as for as you can tell no one is driving. How can I be sited if the city can't prove I was driving.
The catch 22 I'm trying to avoid is IDing my wife as the driver so she gets stuck with the ticket.
Any advice for me?
I've just done a little more digging about the city code regarding speed cameras, which can be found here. http://www.mrsc.org/mc/lynnwood/Lynn...nwood1118.html
I'm having a little trouble understanding this part.
If I'm reading this correctly the section completely throws out any presumption of innocence. Doesn't the burden of proof rest on the city to prove the I was infact the person driving the car?11.18.030 Prima facie presumption.
A. In a traffic infraction case involving an infraction detected through the use of an automated traffic safety camera under this chapter, proof that the particular vehicle described in the notice of traffic infraction was involved in a stoplight violation, railroad crossing violation and/or school speed zone violation, together with proof that the person named in the notice of infraction was at the time of the violation the registered owner of the vehicle, shall constitute in evidence a prima facie presumption that the registered owner of the vehicle was the person in control of the vehicle at the point where, and for the time during which, the violation occurred.
B. This presumption may be overcome only if the registered owner, under oath, states in a written statement to the court or in testimony before the court that the vehicle involved was, at the time, stolen or in the care, custody or control of some person other than the registered owner. (Ord. 2789 § 1, 2009; Ord. 2642 § 1, 2006)
Doesn't this section of the code prevent the city from capturing an image of the driver and then allow them to assume that the registered owner is the only person that ever operates the vehicle?11.18.010 Automated traffic safety cameras – Detection of violations – Restrictions.
A. City law enforcement officers and persons commissioned by the Lynnwood police chief are authorized to use automated traffic cameras and related automated systems only to detect and record the image of: (1) stoplight violations at the intersection of two arterials; (2) railroad crossing violations; and (3) school speed zone violations; provided, however, pictures of the vehicle and the vehicle license plate may be taken only while an infraction is occurring, and the picture shall not reveal the face of the driver or of any passengers in the vehicle.
Is there anything that would require me to identify the person driving? I should just be able to go to court and testify that I was not the driver and the city lacks the evidence to prove otherwise. The only problem I can foresee is that I have no proof that I wasn't driving the car that day. I had the day off and was home alone all day, but then again I shouldn't have to prove that I wasn't driving should I?