Speeding tickets in Tennessee?

[300winmag]

I believe most speeding tickets in Memphis city limits are between 50 and 100 dollars from what I've heard.  I'm actually surprised at how cheap they are.  I could be wrong.  I've heard that Piperton (little town with maybe 1000 people) is around 200 dollars if you don't want the moving violation on your driving record.  Do not speed on 385 (soon to be 269) or the new part of Interstate 269 in Piperton because there is a good very chance a Piperton police car is running radar.

[Chucktshoes]

2 hours ago, 10-Ring said:

Good luck with that.  Most camera tickets have no means in place to contest them.  You pay the fine or lose your license.  You are automatically quilty if you get one.

 Not in the state of Tennessee. They are prohibited by statute from sanctioning you in anyway if you do not pay camera tickets. If you get one of those in the mail, throw the thing in the garbage. Or better yet,  send it back with a note telling them to piss off and citing the statute. 

[Chucktshoes]

10 minutes ago, 300winmag said:

I believe most speeding tickets in Memphis city limits are between 50 and 100 dollars from what I've heard.  I'm actually surprised at how cheap they are.  I could be wrong.  I've heard that Piperton (little town with maybe 1000 people) is around 200 dollars if you don't want the moving violation on your driving record.  Do not speed on 385 (soon to be 269) or the new part of Interstate 269 in Piperton because there is a good very chance a Piperton police car is running radar.

 Piperton is a speed trap city. They have a much nicer City Hall then their residency tax base can actually support.  I will give you three guesses how they paid for it. Your first two don't count. 

[ReeferMac]

14 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

They are prohibited by statute from sanctioning you in anyway if you do not pay camera tickets.

 

Do you have a reference for said statute? Would love to keep that handy (I do a lot of driving)!

 

- K
 

[xsubsailor]

Interesting read on the subject.. Maybe they'll get things sorted out this fall.

 

NASHVILLE, Feb. 16, 2017– On Thursday, Tennessee State Rep. Andy Holt (R-Dresden) took to Facebook Live where he paid two traffic camera tickets with Monopoly money and a photographed image of a $50 bill. On one of the payments, Holt wrote “In the spirit of justice,” before sending it off to processors. Holt says he did the video in an effort to raise awareness for new legislation, aimed at traffic cameras, he’s introducing along with Senator John Stevens (R-Huntingdon) and Senate Transportation Chairman Senator Paul Bailey (R-Sparta). (Note: The video is HERE.)

“Cities across the state, in concert with photo-enforcement companies, continue to skirt the law and take advantage of our taxpayers, and I won’t rest until everyone knows the truth about this,” says Holt.

The proposed legislation will require all unmanned traffic cameras be used only from a marked police car with the lights blazing, and will require the suspect to be pulled over by the law enforcement officer operating the manned photo-enforcement device.

 

“Every traffic camera proponent I’ve talked to says it’s all about safety, yet we have unmarked cars with cameras hidden inside of them which do absolutely nothing to slow a driver down,” said Holt. “It’s entrapment, plain and simple. You know what does slow a speeding vehicle down? A marked police car on the side of the road. Therefore, I don’t expect any resistance to this proposed legislation, since it is about safety, after all.”

The legislation will also have other elements. One such element is to require all communications to a violator expressly state that non-payment of the citation cannot affect your credit score, driver’s license or car insurance rates.

“We already passed this law last year, but cities continue to knowingly ignore state law in order to collect more money from people,” says Holt. “They are also issuing citations that say ‘PAYMENT IS REQUIRED BY LAW’, well, that’s not true and the cities know it’s not. Traffic violations fall under criminal statute within state law, and there is no state law on the books saying you have to pay a traffic camera citation disguised as a civil violation. Also, by saying payment is required, the citation assumes you’re guilty when you haven’t been found guilty of anything. The legislation will outlaw this predatory language.”

Holt says the proposed legislation has been met with warm reception by many Tennessee lawmakers.

“There’s a lot of support for these proposals. When the Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, which will hear the legislation, carries the bill you know there’s broad support,” says Holt. “Tennesseans are tired of being manipulated by their government and legislators are starting to understand that.”

Holt says one of his biggest problems with traffic cameras is how they incite disrespect towards law enforcement.

“Not only are citizens victims of this practice, but law enforcement agents are as well, and I want people to know that,” says Holt. “Police are employed by city governments. Government officials tell them what to do. It’s unfortunate to see how many people get upset with police officers over these cameras. It’s not their fault. Trust me, I have received hundreds of phone calls from law enforcement officers who say they want these things gone, but cannot speak out in fear of losing their job. People do not need to be upset with police. They need to be upset with politicians who make the laws police are tasked with enforcing.”

Holt did a similar video last session which went viral and gained national attention where he burned a traffic camera ticket.

 

http://humphreyonthehill.tnjournal.net/rep-holt-pays-traffic-camera-tickets-with-monopoly-money/

[Ugly]

Knoxville had a hit piece on the news with this subject saying you had to pay them as well. 

Rep Holt is spearheading this because out elected officials are all about cashing in on the citizenry. He has a website that covers a lot of issues. http://www.andyholt4tn.com

apparently he gave a way an AR as a door prize last year too. http://archive.commercialappeal.com/news/government/state/tennessee-rep-holt-to-give-away-ar-15-at-fundraiser-352f00e2-f4cc-176a-e053-0100007fb102-382739961.html

I think I'll get a camera ticket on purpose just to mess with them.

 

[monkeylizard]

1 hour ago, ReeferMac said:

 

Do you have a reference for said statute? Would love to keep that handy (I do a lot of driving)!

 

- K
 

TCA 55-8-198

Quote

55-8-198.  Citations based on unmanned traffic enforcement cameras.

  (a ) A traffic citation that is based solely upon evidence obtained from an unmanned traffic enforcement camera that has been installed to enforce or monitor traffic violations shall be considered a nonmoving traffic violation.

(b )  (1 ) Only POST-certified or state-commissioned law enforcement officers shall be authorized to review video evidence from a traffic light signal monitoring system and make a determination as to whether a violation has occurred. If a determination is made that a violation has occurred, a notice of violation or a citation shall be sent by first class mail to the registered owner of the vehicle that was captured by the traffic light signal monitoring system. A notice of violation or a citation shall be sent within twenty (20) business days after the occurrence of the violation, absent exigent circumstances arising from registration irregularities. All notices of violation or citations shall have a Tennessee return address and all responses and payments shall be made to an address in this state. A notice of violation or citation shall allow for payment of the traffic violation or citation within thirty (30) days of the mailing of the notice. No additional penalty or other costs shall be assessed for nonpayment of a traffic violation or citation that is based solely on evidence obtained from unmanned traffic enforcement cameras installed to enforce or monitor traffic violations, unless a second notice is sent by first class mail to the registered owner of the motor vehicle and the second notice provides for an additional thirty (30) days for payment of the violation or citation.

 

But because this stuff is written by lawyers, that's followed by (b ) (4 ) which says:

(4) If the person cited does not pay the traffic citation within the time specified by subdivision (b)(1), then additional fees or court costs may be assessed.

Edited July 31, 2017 by monkeylizard

[ReeferMac]

Muchas Gracias Senior!

I drive one on Kingston Pike several times a week and always paranoid. No more! Thanks.

 

- K
 

[jpx2rk]

Sounds like if you get the 2nd notice then you gotta pay or face additional expenses.  Correct ??

[Sam1]

5 hours ago, monkeylizard said:

TCA 55-8-198

 

But because this stuff is written by lawyers, that's followed by (b ) (4 ) which says:

 

But that also says that the notice must be verified and sent by a state certified LEO - and none of the notices are.  they're just automailed by the sham companies.

[Garufa]

2 minutes ago, jpx2rk said:

Sounds like if you get the 2nd notice then you gotta pay or face additional expenses.  Correct ??

So they say but I have yet to hear of they following through with it.  Then again, the news is not going to report on it and everyone who has done so is living on borrowed time...per the law.

I keep life simple, I know where the cameras are and even if I didn't there are plenty of convenient signs letting you know.  Those who don't pay attention just need to go ahead and send The Man his check.  

[Garufa]

Just now, Sam1 said:

But that also says that the notice must be verified and sent by a state certified LEO - and none of the notices are.  they're just automailed by the sham companies.

All camera citations are reviewed by a POST certified officer of the jurisdiction in which they are issued prior to mailing.  This is nothing new, they've been out there for years as have numerous news pieces on it.

[Sam1]

did not know this.  Doesn't matter, I still wouldn't pay them a penny.

<edit> this is where i got confused - I knew Andy Holt put something out about it last year, had to do some google-fu

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2016/05/27/tennessee-lawmaker-burns-traffic-camera-ticket-urges-ignore-them/85049454/

Quote

Holt contends the companies operating traffic cameras under contract with Tennessee cities are themselves violating a provision of state law that says only a commissioned law enforcement officer can review video or photos of drivers running red lights or speeding to determine whether any violation occurs. The lawmaker says the two leading companies in contracting for traffic cameras in Tennessee — RedFlex Holdings Inc., headquartered in Australia, and American Traffic Solutions Inc., based in Arizona — openly promote their practice of having company personnel review the tapes before passing on suspected violations for police officer review.

Was confused about what he said.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Sam1

[Patton]

So here is my experience with speed cameras. I worked for a small town outside of Chattanooga that had a representative come to us and give us the spill on how their company worked.  They supplied the camera which was on a 4x8 trailer and they gave us the training on how to use it.  Officers set up the trailer and watched the trailer and traffic throughout the day.  We, POST Certified Officers, reviewed the offenses at the end of the day, and dropped the disk in the mail that went to St. Louis.  The company mailed the violation notices back to the officer who then signed them and mailed them directly to the offender. The violation gave the offense, time, date, and two photos of the vehicle committing the offense. You also got a link to watch the violation on camera. There were some various directions on options to take such as paying, calling, or appearing in court on xx-xx-xx.  On xx-xx-xxxx date the accused could appear and state their case.  A failure to appear resulted in a registered letter with a new court date.  On that court date if they didn't show the registered owner would get a license revocation sent to TN DOS. We occasionally got people who would stop in complaining that they never new of the offense and asked for help getting their license reinstated. People didn't get their license suspended for not paying but for failure to appear. 

I don't know how other places do it.  I know the City of Chattanooga actually has officers in the vehicle with the camera.  I don't know if a private party is involved at all. 

[Ugly]

48 minutes ago, Patton said:

So here is my experience with speed cameras. I worked for a small town outside of Chattanooga that had a representative come to us and give us the spill on how their company worked.  They supplied the camera which was on a 4x8 trailer and they gave us the training on how to use it.  Officers set up the trailer and watched the trailer and traffic throughout the day.  We, POST Certified Officers, reviewed the offenses at the end of the day, and dropped the disk in the mail that went to St. Louis.  The company mailed the violation notices back to the officer who then signed them and mailed them directly to the offender. The violation gave the offense, time, date, and two photos of the vehicle committing the offense. You also got a link to watch the violation on camera. There were some various directions on options to take such as paying, calling, or appearing in court on xx-xx-xx.  On xx-xx-xxxx date the accused could appear and state their case.  A failure to appear resulted in a registered letter with a new court date.  On that court date if they didn't show the registered owner would get a license revocation sent to TN DOS. We occasionally got people who would stop in complaining that they never new of the offense and asked for help getting their license reinstated. People didn't get their license suspended for not paying but for failure to appear. 

I don't know how other places do it.  I know the City of Chattanooga actually has officers in the vehicle with the camera.  I don't know if a private party is involved at all. 

Seems rough to me! Why not just put a warrant out for their arrest? Geez. 

Sounds like entrapment of sorts. I know the powers that be need the money and this is a great way to get it coming in. It seems wrong to me though. 

[Patton]

2 hours ago, Ugly said:

Seems rough to me! Why not just put a warrant out for their arrest? Geez. 

Sounds like entrapment of sorts. I know the powers that be need the money and this is a great way to get it coming in. It seems wrong to me though. 

We had a woman show up and plead guilty which was only a $50 ticket.  She stumped the courts and the attorneys when she said she wasn't going to pay it.  There was nothing, not a thing, that the courts could do.  They weren't going to sue her for the money. They were hoping the accused would either pay or not show up.  Pleading and guilty and not paying was something they never could figure out.  

 

[Chucktshoes]

7 hours ago, Patton said:

We had a woman show up and plead guilty which was only a $50 ticket.  She stumped the courts and the attorneys when she said she wasn't going to pay it.  There was nothing, not a thing, that the courts could do.  They weren't going to sue her for the money. They were hoping the accused would either pay or not show up.  Pleading and guilty and not paying was something they never could figure out.  

 

I like her style! 

[Ugly]

9 hours ago, Patton said:

We had a woman show up and plead guilty which was only a $50 ticket.  She stumped the courts and the attorneys when she said she wasn't going to pay it.  There was nothing, not a thing, that the courts could do.  They weren't going to sue her for the money. They were hoping the accused would either pay or not show up.  Pleading and guilty and not paying was something they never could figure out.  

 

That's great!

[E4 No More]

9 hours ago, Patton said:

We had a woman show up and plead guilty which was only a $50 ticket.  She stumped the courts and the attorneys when she said she wasn't going to pay it.  There was nothing, not a thing, that the courts could do.  They weren't going to sue her for the money. They were hoping the accused would either pay or not show up.  Pleading and guilty and not paying was something they never could figure out.  

 

I was a Missouri State certified RADAR instructor back in the 90's.

A long standing court precedence is that an officer cannot rely on a device to determine if the vehicle was speeding; that THEY must use their judgment to determine that the vehicle was speeding via observation first, and then use the RADAR gun to verify their assessment. This is why auto-lock was removed from the guns. These trailers are doing exactly the opposite. One would think the judiciary would know this, so their allowing it proves that all they are interested in is the money. There's also that pesky inability to cross-examine a machine.

[monkeylizard]

56 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

 so their allowing it proves that all they are interested in is the money.

Why would anyone ever think otherwise?

[Chucktshoes]

22 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

Why would anyone ever think otherwise?

It is only ever about the revenue. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying. Granted, they may be lying to themselves as well, but they are most definitely not in relationship with the truth on the subject. If it wasn't about revenue, then they would employ other methods to get folks to slow down. As an example, Covington employs empty squad cars posted in highly visible locales along 51. I've seen this tactic used in Dayton, OH and other municipalities before as well. You never know if the unit is empty or not, and folks slow down because of that. If the officer or detection device is not highly visible, if their presence is concealed or minimized (such as the trend in making the paint schemes less obvious so that they blend in with surrounding traffic better) then their purpose is revenue generation. Increased "public safety" is at best a byproduct, and more often just a convenient pretense. 

Edited August 3, 2017 by Chucktshoes

[monkeylizard]

Yep. We could also skip fines altogether and give points instead. Get too many points and your license is revoked.

Plus if NHTSA really wanted to stop speeding, they could. The Waze app (and others) knows where I am and knows what the speed limit is on that roadway. It doesn't seem to me to be a far stretch to make my car know the same thing and dynamically govern the speed. If public safety was indeed the primary concern, this seems like the easiest, and most effective solution to stopping speeding in pretty much every new car. In 10 years time, you'd have all but eliminated speeding. That's all moot anyway once self-driving cars become the norm over the next 20 years. They either won't speed, or there won't be a need for a speed limit as they'll al communicate with one another and move at the optimal speed, whatever that happens to be at the moment rather than what some road engineer decided it should be all the time.

Edited August 3, 2017 by monkeylizard

[E4 No More]

1 hour ago, monkeylizard said:

Why would anyone ever think otherwise?

There are many people in this country who do think otherwise.

[monkeylizard]

I know. I just don't know why they do. It's clear that we've created a serious conflict of interest in many areas involving police and money.

[E4 No More]

14 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

Yep.

Plus if NHTSA really wanted to stop speeding, they could. The Waze app (and others) knows where I am and knows what the speed limit is on that roadway. It doesn't seem to me to be a far stretch to make my car know the same thing and dynamically govern the speed. If public safety was indeed the primary concern, this seems like the easiest, and most effective solution to stopping speeding in pretty much every new car. In 10 years time, you'd have all but eliminated speeding. That's all moot anyway once self-driving cars become the norm over the next 20 years. They either won't speed, or there won't be a need for a speed limit as they'll al communicate with one another and move at the optimal speed, whatever that happens to be at the moment rather than what some road engineer decided it should be all the time.

I recall a story a few years back where GM was monitoring their car's computers via satellite and could tell when you were speeding or otherwise doing things that were detrimental to the car. The claim was that they could use the information to void your warranty. Speed limiting could certainly happen as long as they were constantly updating for changes in the speed limit and temporary changes for construction zones.