At tonight's (3/9) city council meeting, I put forward a proposal that the city adopt a policy regarding automated law enforcement mechanisms like red light cameras.

Mayor and Council members,

Thank you for listening to those you represent.

You all know, by now, how much I dislike our current red light cameras. One of the major problems with these cameras is that they provide faulty evidence which breaks due process.

Currently, photographic evidence of red light violations are used as justification to issue citations. Unfortunately, no photograph is ever taken of the driver breaking the law. Therefore citations are sent to the registered owner of the vehicle involved, not the person that ran the red light. What's even worse is that the owner is then responsible for proving his innocence to avoid the $75 fine, instead of the city proving his guilt.

No other moving vehicle violation is handled this way. Speeders are pulled over and the driver is ticketed. In collision cases, the drivers of the vehicles are questioned for wrong-doing. And in all instances, the vehicle owner is assumed innocent of the driver's crime.

Therefore, I propose a policy for traffic cameras be adopted by the city that forces moving violation citations to be issued only to properly identified drivers. The wording of the policy must be chosen carefully, but consistent with witnessed infractions.

This policy wouldn't affect current practices where police are at the scene of an incident. This would only affect automated law enforcement systems. Specifically, it would prevent photographs from cameras that fail to capture and identify drivers from being used as evidence to issue citations to innocent vehicle owners.

I believe this policy can go into effect immediately, without having to remove the current cameras being operated by RedFlex. Every RedFlex citation must be approved by League City police. If police were instructed to have driver identification before approving citations, no terms of the RedFlex contract would be broken. The contract also has a cost neutrality clause that says the city isn't liable for shortfalls in citation income with respect to the $5000 per camera per month fixed fee. This policy would not cost anything to the city and would help preserve the citizens' due process rights.

Please notice, this policy would not prevent the use of automated law enforcement camera systems. It would only prevent the kind that abuses due process.

As a side note, this kind of policy is what I would have expected to come out of the State-required citizen advisory committee, where the citizens of the city had some input in protecting their rights. But, since that committee was improperly staffed, we the citizens never had the chance to interject our needs.

Please consider having an open discussion about this proposal, and if an agreement can be made, adopt the policy quickly.

Thank you for your time.

I have not received any feedback from council on my idea, but I certainly hope they take it as a serious proposal.

Also of note: League City tosses 1,700 red light tickets

~~DISCUSSION~~