by Kevin Beals - Issue 62

I’m sure we’ve all seen it: That brief flash as someone passes through an intersection, followed by an all-too-late screech of tires. The laughter of those nearby at the schmuck who’s getting a ticket in the mail. The increasingly rare grumble at the invasion of privacy. The mayor’s proud, public declarations that everyone will benefit from his wonderful, new, ultra, even-safer-than-before red-light camera plan that - lo and behold - just happens to pay for itself! Sound familiar?

Actually, I wasn’t talking about Seattle just there. I fled San Diego 5 years ago from exactly this same form of creeping surveillance (well, amongst many other things). I hoped, perhaps wishfully, that it wouldn’t reach here. I was, unfortunately, wrong.

Red-light cameras have been spreading across the country like wildfire, fueled by a combination of technology cost reduction, private speculation and a tenfold increase in the nearly hysterical “public safety” rhetoric of an increasing number of city planners. Some estimates suggest that in the past 7 years alone, red-light camera installations jumped up nearly 450% nationally. Those are probably low numbers, by any standard, as they do not include new speed or surveillance cameras. In truth, however, nobody really knows, as the cameras are being installed faster than the statistics can keep up with them. There have been some legal challenges made to the legitimacy of these cameras, but they are few and unsuccessful thus far. Public protest against these technologies has been drowned out or silenced in the histrionics of “public safety.” So what is happening?

In nearly every instance of new red-light camera plans instituted across the country, there are a couple of things you can find almost universally in common amongst them:

1) The cameras are installed and/or operated by a third-party, for-profit contractor who collects their “costs” from the ticket fee. This is often a hefty chunk of the total fine.

2) The drafting, legislation and eventual implementation of these systems are all made entirely without public approval, often behind closed doors and with no planning committee. No votes, no judicial or public oversight. No problem!

On Wednesday, January 2nd, Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that Seattle City mayor Greg Nickels announced the city would be installing 24 new red-light cameras at 19 intersections across the city in 2008, bringing the total number of cameras citywide to 30 cameras at 22 intersections. The article didn’t even make the print edition of the paper, and was pretty much a verbatim re-statement of the city’s own press release. There were no questions asked, and none answered. According to the city’s version of the article, the decision was made after a 1-year pilot program “successfully” showed a reduction in the number of collisions and injuries at the intersections photographed. The original pilot program was budgeted at $460,000 and resulted in nearly $1.1 million in penalties. Humorously, the city’s statement even says, “While the red-light cameras appear to be paying for themselves, public safety is the primary reason for the program.”

My big, fat, hairy white ass it is.

$1.1 million in one year, alone? That officially makes the city’s red-light program more effective at collecting money than many of its small businesses. At that rate, the city is making roughly $3,013 a day for what amounts to an automatic conviction. Imagine how much money they’re going to be making with 24 additional cameras! According to my own dubious statistics, that means the city can expect at least $4.4 million in tax-free, untraceable extra revenue next year from this program, alone. God knows how much money the companies operating the cameras will make themselves. But where is the public outrage? Sitting at home, knocking back a Coors Lite and watching the game on their new HDTV, most likely. Personal privacy has gone the way of the buffalo in today’s security culture, and it seems there are dwindling few who care enough to fight for it anymore. It just doesn’t have the sex-appeal it used to, I guess.

Now to the point: who’s watching whom?

In essence, when you cross an intersection and a photograph is taken of your vehicle, the operator of that camera is collecting evidence--without a warrant or accusation. I’ve often heard variations on this argument: “Well, by entering the intersection, you are essentially committing the crime, and therefore the operator can legally take your picture.” If the logic behind this is true, then the camera operator would be fulfilling the simultaneous role of warrant officer and evidence collector. How handy. As it has been shown in numerous studies, red-light cameras are hardly reliable witnesses, and there no empirical way of correlating any supposed reduction in accidents with the installation of the cameras. Correlation does not equal causation. I’m amazed at how difficult this simple, logical principle completely eludes many city planners.

Even the frequent claim that cameras increase public safety, their purported purpose, is mostly unsubstantiated. An October 4th, 2005 Washington Post article reported that in their study of intersections with red-light cameras in Washington D.C., accidents actually increased after the cameras were installed. There are probably hundreds of other articles from newspapers around the country highlighting the notorious unreliability of red-light camera technology. To make it worse, Seattle’s own data was created and reviewed entirely by city staff--hardly an objective or expert resource--and there was no peer review. I’m calling bullshit.

There are still numerous legal questions which have never been properly answered, both in and outside of Seattle. The state legislature’s authorization for the use of red-light cameras skirts the highly controversial legal gray-area of “public space” for justification. If this logic is true, then in any public space, at any time, a police officer may obtain any evidence they see necessary to obtain, with any rationalization. Under this scenario, we are all guilty until proven innocent. This is a violation of the fourth amendment right to protection from unwarranted search and seizure. By simply getting the ticket in the mail, you can no longer say “no” to a self-incriminating statement, since failure to do so results in more fines and eventually criminal charges. This is a violation of the fifth-amendment. People are going to run red lights anyway, and the cameras clearly do not stop them from doing so. They are merely another annoying example of Edward Abbey’s “petty tyranny.”

Other cities, such as San Diego, have justified the sixth-amendment breach with the claim that they do provide for confronting one’s accuser by allowing ticket contestation. The problem with this is that the “accuser,” per se, is a camera operated by a third-party, non-governmental organization. They are not a valid law enforcement body, and even then, there is still no witness. One may not confront their accuser directly, either, as you have to go through the city, first--even though the city is technically not the original accuser. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

More importantly than any of this is the fact that, with current technology, there is no way of proving that the operator of the car and the registered owner are the same person. This is another fifth-amendment breach, because whoever responds to the accusation is incriminating their self—whether or not they were driving the car. God save us all from the day when facial recognition and red-light camera technologies finally combine. Until then, no matter which way you slice it, you are being denied due process. This sets a frightening precedent, because it shifts the traditional burden of proof from the accuser to the accused. Essentially, in order to prove your innocence, you must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you did not run a red light or that you were not the driver. We are all suspects. If this is truly in the “interest of public safety” as Greg Nickels has repeatedly stated, then why was it not passed with public approval? Why not put it to a vote? Are you afraid that the public will reject your proposal, Mr. Nickels? Well, tough shit, asshole, that’s called democracy.