hazelwood lawsuit red-light cameras

8/4/2019 Hazelwood Lawsuit Red-light Cameras

1/60

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF ST. LOUISSTATE OF MISSOURI

Plaintiffs, Div.

MARK TOLMAN, JULIET TOLMAN, ANDDANA IDJNTER (flnla DANA BRAKEEN),on behalf of themselves and all others similarly Case No.situated,

v. JURyCITY OF HAZELWOOD,

Serve: City Administrator or City Attorney415 Elm Grove LaneHazelwood, MO 63042

andAMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC.;Serve: C.T. Corporation System

120 South Central AvenueClayton, MO 63105

Defendants.CLASS ACT ION PET IT ION

COME NOW Plaintiffs, Mark Tolman, Juliet Tolman, and Dana Hunter ("Plaintiffs")and bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, against the City ofHazelwood and American Traffic Solutions, Inc., ("Defendants"), and hereby state as follows:

1. The City of Hazelwood's red light camera ordinance is void as a matter oflawbecause it conflicts with and is contrary to Missouri state law (Mo. Rev. Stat. 304.271.1 and304.281.1) governing traffic regulations and rules of the road related to traffic control signals.

2. Plaintiffs bring this class action not to pave the way for people to run red lights withimpunity, but rather to expose a void, unlawful, and unconstitutional ordinance that Defendants'have exploited to engage in an underhanded practice of persecuting and bilking Missouriansunder the guise and pretext of a public safety program known as red light cameras (the

1


2/60

"Cameras"). Simply put: if the goal of red light cameras is to enforce public safety, then driversshould be assessed points on their driver's license just like other moving violations and just likethey would if pulled over by a police officer for running a red light. Instead, the City of

Hazelwood ("Hazelwood") has deliberately and unlawfully misc1assified moving violations ofred light signals as a "non moving infraction" for which "no points will be assessed" against adriver's license. There is no rational basis for Defendant Hazelwood to circumvent a Missouristate law intended to keep dangerous drivers off the road (i.e., Mo. Rev. Stat. 302.225 and302.302).

3. Inaddition to the conflict between Missouri state law and Hazelwood's red lightcamera ordinance (Ord. No. 3754-06 1, and codified inHazelwood's municipal code as315.095, hereinafter the "Ordinance"), Defendant Hazelwood did not have authority to enactthe Ordinance because, among other reasons, the Ordinance does not enact "rules of the road" or"traffic regulations." A copy of the Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

4. The Ordinance and the Cameras, which Hazelwood refers to as Automated Photo

Enforcement of Traffic Control Signal Regulations, do not regulate traffic and do not enforceexisting Missouri traffic laws. The Ordinance proclaims that "liability hereunder is based onownership. without regard to whether the owner was operating the motor vehicle at the time ofthe violation." As such, the Ordinance creates an unlawful regulation and jettisons the state lawrequirement that "the driver of any vehicle shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device" (Mo. Rev. Stat. 304.271.1) and "whenever traffic is controlled by trafficcontrol signals exhibiting different colored lights ... said lights shall indicate and apply to driversof vehicles ... " (Mo. Rev. Stat. 304.281.1) (emphasis added).

5. Because the Ordinance establishes a requirement in conflict with and contrary to a

2


3/60

state law with respect to a matter on which the state law is intended to be controlling, theOrdinance is void as a matter oflaw. S ee e .g ., K en ney v.Hoerr, 324 Mo. 368,373 (Mo. 1929)."No ordinance shall be valid which contains provisions contrary to or in conflict with [Chapter

304 of Missouri Revised Statutes]." Mo. Rev. Stat. 304.l20.1.3.6. Itutterly shocks the conscience that Hazelwood's Ordinance prohibits the vehicle

owner from proving innocence by adducing evidence of the actual driver. Barring the accusedfrom asserting this defense is entirely unreasonable, unlawful, and contrary to Missouri statelaws governing traffic regulation and the enforcement of public safety vis-a-vis Missouri's point-system for moving violations.

7. Indeed, by circumventing Missouri law, by enacting and enforcing a presumption ofguilt, by threatening further legal action including arrest and imprisonment for failure to payorappear before its municipal tribunal, and by limiting the defenses available to the accused,Defendants have created a revenue-generating scheme whereby defending oneself against aviolation of the Ordinance becomes impractical, financially unsound and legally burdensome

when weighed against the option of simply paying the fine.8. In bringing this class action, Plaintiffs seek to expose what they and other Missouri

citizens believe is an unscrupulous business venture between an out-of-state for-profitcorporation and a municipal government seeking new ways to fill city coffers. Without authorityfrom the People of Missouri or its representatives inthe Missouri Legislature, Hazelwood andDefendant American Traffic Solutions ("ATS") have devised a red light camera program, whichis in direct conflict with Missouri state law, for one true purpose: to make money.

9. The Ordinance is void, unlawful and unconstitutional under Missouri law, and invalidas a matter of public policy, for several reasons including, but not limited to:

3


4/60

a. The Ordinance establishes strict liability based solely on ownership andeliminates the legal requirement that only the driver shall be liable; therefore, the Ordinance iscontrary to and in conflict with Missouri state law (Mo. Rev. Stat. 304.271.1 and 304.281.1)governing traffic regulations and rules of the road related to traffic control signals.

b. Defendants have deliberately circumvented Missouri state laws intendedto keep dangerous drivers off the road (Mo. Rev. Stat. 302.225, 302.302, 302.010(12)), at theperil of Missouri citizens. Indeed, without a rational basis, Defendants have unlawfully andillogically misc1assified a red light violation (which is a moving violation under State law, Mo.Rev. Stat. 302.01O(l2)) as a "non-moving infraction" to avoid the Missouri drivers licensepoint-system, which Defendant has done for the intended purpose of decreasing the number ofcontested red light camera cases and increasing the number of camera tickets paid. Thus, theOrdinance, while disguised and marketed to the public as a public safety program, does notactually promote public safety because Defendant has converted misdemeanor moving violationsinto non moving infractions to avoid reporting guilty pleas and convictions, meaning that no

driver will ever be assessed points and removed from the road for what Hazelwood calls a"violation of public safety". If the primary goal of the Cameras is to enforce public safety, thendrivers should be assessed points on their licenses like other moving violations, which, in fact, isrequired under Missouri law.

c. The Ordinance subjects Missourians to different liability and penalties forviolating the same red light signal; that is, a Missourian can receive and pay a $100 red lightCamera ticket and not face the same kind of criminal penalty if they were caught by a policeofficer for violating the same red light. Even worse, the same Missourian can be subject todouble jeopardy when pulled over by a police officer for a red light violation and pleads guilty,

4


5/60

but then receives a Camera ticket in the mail weeks later for the same red light violation he orshe already was convicted of and must therefore defend again.

d. The Ordinance violates the Missouri Constitution in that it deprivesPlaintiffs and Class of due process of law, and compels Plaintiffs and Class to testify in order toprove their innocence. The Ordinance creates a presumption of guilt, which is unconstitutional,Vehicle owners (the "Accused") are presumed guilty of violating the Ordinance if a red lightcamera takes a photo of the Accused's vehicle in an intersection when a light is red. By shiftingthe burden of proof onto the vehicle owner to prove his or her innocence, the Ordinance violatesthe privilege against self-incrimination, as the vehicle owner is compelled to testify on his or heron behalf. The United State Supreme Court has continuously upheld the sanctity of thisfundamental right finding it ''while sometimes a shelter to the guilty, is often a protection to theinnocent." Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52, 55 (1954).

e. The Ordinance creates a rule of evidence by establishing strict liability onvehicle owners without regard to whether the owner was actually driving at the time of the

violation. Put another way, the Ordinance contains a conclusive/irrebuttable presumption thatthe owner(s) of a vehicle was or were driving at the time of the violation. Only the GeneralAssembly has the authority to enact rules of evidence. Thus, the Ordinance is void. Defendantsfail to account for what both readily available statistics and common sense demonstrate: it is infact wholly arbitrary to conclusively presume the owner was the driver at the time of theviolation, and it is the height of caprice to impose strict liability on vehicle owners, especiallywhen the vehicle has multiple owners as is the case with Plaintiffs Mark and Juliet Tolman, orwhen multiple people share a vehicle (e.g., licensed teenagers driving the family car).

f. Red light cameras do not increase public safety. In fact, "comprehensive

5


6/60

studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safetyargument not to install them .... public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhancerevenues for government and private interests at the risk ofpuhlic safety."! Moreover,th ese C am eras are cap ab le o f d oin g little o r n oth in g to red uce accid en ts o r c urtail d an ge ro usd riv in g b ecau se C am era s can no t sto p d ru nk d riv ers an d can no t sto p d istracted d riv ers? S tu diesshow C am eras co uld o nly deter less th an 8% o f no n-drun k d riv ing related accid en ts as thep rima ry c au se o f re d lig ht a cc id en ts is d riv er in atte ntio n.3 When p re se nte d w ith s ta tistic s fromth e U .S . an d th e U .K . sh ow in g th at d riv er in atten tio n is th e p rim ary cau se o f accid en ts in vo lv in gred lights, A TS salesm an D an R eeb said, "I can't argue w ith the num bers ... I'm not going toa rgue that point.?" Even worse, d ozen s o f stu dies from acro ss N orth America h av e rep eated lys hown th at re d lig ht C ame ra s a ctu ally in cre as e a cc id en ts . 5

g. The Cameras replace live police officers - whose purpose is to enforce thelaw s and w ho can com bat all crim es not just red light violations - w ith autom atons capable ofo nly o ne p urp ose: ph oto grap h th e backside of v ehicles in ord er to fu nn el rev enu e to H azelw ood1Barb ara L an gla nd -O rb an e t a l., Red Light Running Cameras .... 5 FLA. PUB.HEALTH REv. 1 (2 00 8); infact, d ozen s o f stu dies sh ow re d lig ht cam eras in crease th e n um be r o f accid en ts, a comp ilatio n o f th eses tudi es a re a va il ab le a t: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp. an dhttp://www .motoris ts.orglred-light-cameras/s tudies .2 See e.g., Missouri: Police Chief Admits Red Light Cameras Made No Difference,http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3344.asp (Wa sh in gto n M isso uri d ec lin ed to re new its c on tra ctw ith ATS citin g n o safety in crea se as a resu lt o f th e cam eras); D.C. Red-light Cameras Fail to ReduceAccidents http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dynlcontentlarticle/2005/1 0/031AR20051 0030 1844 .h tm l3 The War on Short Yellows, Wall S t. J., http://online.wsj.com/article/SBI23975737976619187.html(Apr il 15, 2009 ); Washington MO Dumps Red Light Cameras, at http://www.thenewspaper.coml-news/33/3369.asp (Jan. 5 ,2 011) (in cluding the sto ry of 1 0 year o ld K ayla T rem eear w ho died in A rno ldMO w hen the car she w as in w as hit by a driver changing the radio w ho did not see the traffic light. A sap tly stated b y C ou ncilm an B ud dem ey er: "if th ere w ou ld h av e b een a re d lig ht cam era th ere, it w ou ld n'thave prevented the trag edy o r acciden t ... B ut if there w as an officer w ho w ould have seen h im driv in gerratic and stopp ed him befo re h e go t to the intersection, sh e m ig ht b e h ere as w e sp eak. I d on't think th ered light cam eras save lives." A s noted by C oun cilm an R hod es, th e m ost the C am eras w ould h aveach ie ved is a citatio n issu ed a m on th later to th e v eh icle own er fo r $ 10 0, lo ng after K ay la 's fu neral).4 Wash in gton MO D um ps R ed L ight C am eras, supra no te 2.5 See e.g., http://www.thenewspaper.comlnews/04/430.asp and http://www.motoris ts .orglred-light-c am e ra s/stu die s (c omp ilin g stu die s sh ow in g re d lig ht c am era s a ctu ally in cre ase c ra sh es a nd injuries).

6
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp.http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3344.asphttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dynlcontentlarticle/2005/1http://online.wsj.com/article/SBI23975737976619187.htmlhttp://www.thenewspaper.comlnews/04/430.asphttp://www.thenewspaper.comlnews/04/430.asphttp://online.wsj.com/article/SBI23975737976619187.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dynlcontentlarticle/2005/1http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3344.asphttp://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp.


7/60

and ATS. Even more disturbing, Defendants' Camera program requires pulling police officersoff the street and placing them in front of a computer to review red light camera images, whichobviously results in a clear detriment to the people of Hazelwood as there are fewer policeofficers on the street to fight crime. Without a doubt, red light Cameras cannot stop a drunkdriver from running a red light at the first intersection, running a red light at the next intersection,and then killing someone in the third intersection _ while police officers can. Red light Camerascannot keep our communities safe from crime - while police officers can. In fact, the St. LouisPolice Officers' Association overwhelmingly voted in opposition to st. Louis' red light cameraprogram stating: "there is a lot more to a traffic stop than just issuing a ticket - - there's alsochecking to make sure the driver has insurance and seeing if their license is up to date ... webelieve that traffic tickets should be made against individuals; not their vehicles.t''' The PoliceOfficer's Association also opposed the use of red light cameras stating it would limit policeofficers' interactions with the public. ld.

h. In addition to issuing points on licenses to remove dangerous drivers fromthe road, safer roads can be obtained with better traffic/city engineering, such as: i) adding anall-red clearance interval (a brief period where the lights in all directions are red) after theyellow-light phase. InFebruary of 20II, in Arnold, Missouri, MoDOT changed the length oftime all signals at an intersection appear red, giving intersections more time to clear all carsbefore changing lights; ii) increase the yellow-light time. MoDOT also increased yellow-lightsignal times in Arnold. As a result of these two initiatives, the number of red-light violations hasplummeted"; iii) make traffic lights more visible; and iv) redesign intersections to make them

6 S t. Louis Police Officers Association Votes Against Red-Light Cameras, www.Dailyrft.com.athttp://blogs.riverfronttimes.comldailyrft/2009/03/st_louis _police_officers _association_votes _againstred-light_cameras.php. (emphasis added).7 http://blogs.riverfronttimes.comldailyrftl2011106/redlight_ camera_citation _yellow_lights _arnold.php.

7
http://www.dailyrft.com.at/http://blogs.riverfronttimes.comldailyrft/2009/03/st_louishttp://blogs.riverfronttimes.comldailyrftl2011106/redlight_http://blogs.riverfronttimes.comldailyrftl2011106/redlight_http://blogs.riverfronttimes.comldailyrft/2009/03/st_louishttp://www.dailyrft.com.at/


8/60

safe, such as converting intersections into roundabouts; in fact, implementing "roundabouts inplace of traffic signals would have profound cumulative effects" on vehicular crashes, injuries,traffic congestion, and fuel consumption.l The only catch is these methods do not generatestreams of revenue for cities or for out-of-state corporations like ATS.

10. Hazelwood, with assistance from ATS, enacted the Ordinance establishing theinstallment of a Camera system primarily designed to extract money from vehicle owners; asystem operated by Defendant ArS, which receives a substantial percentage of each fme paid,sometimes well over 50%. According to the Federal Highway Administration, "where a privatecontractor is responsible for the processing of citations, compensation based on the number ofcitations issued should be avoided." Such contingency agreements are condemned in criminallaw because by their very nature they tend to invite corruption and undermine the fair andimpartial administration of justice.

11. Defendants' Camera program has not been approved or sanctioned by the State ofMissouri. The Missouri Legislature has not created enabling legislation for the use of red light

cameras.12. Plaintiffs and Class contend that Defendant ATS' actions, in collusion with

Defendant Hazelwood, are unlawful for several reasons, including but not limited to the8 The Federal Highway Administration has found that compared to intersections with traffic signalsroundabouts reduce fatalities by more than 90%, with a reduction in injury crashes of 76% and areduction in all crashes of35%. See http://safety.thwa.dot.gQv/intersectioniroundabouts/thwasa08006/and see http://www .iihs.orglextemaldatalsrdataldocs/sr4511. pdf (stating "roundabouts essentiallyeliminate the potential for the most dangerous types of crashes - right angle, left tum, and head-oncollisions - because traffic moves in a single direction. Compared with traffic signals, they also reducethe likelihood of rear-end crashes because no one speeds up to make a yellow or green light or abruptlystops because a signal turned red" and also finding roundabouts save cities money as they're cheaper tobuild and maintain than signalized intersections, and don't require electricity). Inanother study onroundabouts, it was found that "widespread nationwide construction of roundabouts inplace of trafficsignals would have profound cumulative effects on vehicle delay and fuel consumption .... Ifust 10%of signalized intersections were converted to roundabouts annual fuel consumption would bereduced by more than 500 million gallons and annual vehicle delays would be reduced by about 800million hours," Available at http://www.iihs.orglresearchlpaper_pdfs/mf_1848.pdf.

8
http://safety.thwa.dot.gqv/intersectioniroundabouts/thwasa08006/http://www.iihs.orglresearchlpaper_pdfs/mf_1848.pdf.http://www.iihs.orglresearchlpaper_pdfs/mf_1848.pdf.http://safety.thwa.dot.gqv/intersectioniroundabouts/thwasa08006/


9/60

following:a. ATS contracted with Hazelwood for the purpose of financial gain with

knowledge that the Ordinance violated Missouri law;h. ATS and Hazelwood manipulate andlor conceal studies and statistics that

show Cameras are not safe (e.g., increase the incidence of rear-end collisions)andlor are not effective.

c. ATS secretly funds multiple organizations designed to promote red lightcameras in Missouri;

d. ATS has recruited and placed Hazelwood Police Chief Carl Wolf as a memberof the Board of Directors of one such organization funded by ATS;

e. ATS acted inconcert with Hazelwood to draft, promulgate, and enforce theOrdinance; and

f. ATS, with knowledge that the Ordinance violates Missouri law, works withHazelwood to generate revenue through the enforcement of the Ordinance,which has unjustly enriched ATS.

13. Defendants contracted with each other to collect monies from Missouri citizens,including Plaintiffs and Class, by designing and enforcing an unlawful ordinance despite havingknowledge that the Ordinance was likely void, invalid, andlor unconstitutional.

14. Defendant ATS andlor Hazelwood had reason to believe that promulgation andenforcement of the Ordinance was unlawful and invalid.

15. Defendant ATS had actual knowledge that the red light camera program would likelyviolate Missouri law including circumvention of the Missouri point system mandated by Mo.Rev. Stat. 302.302.1. See ATS legal opinion attached as Exhibit 2.

9


10/60

16. ATS is an out-of-state corporation that profits from Camera installation andoperation, and commands a portion of every fine paid by a Missouri citizen. Inoperating at leasta dozen red light camera programs throughout Missouri, ATS siphons millions of dollarsannually from the Missouri economy, which is detrimental to the People of Missouri.

17. ATS president Jim Tuton "makes no secret of the fact that his company works behindthe scenes to drum up municipal support for red light cameras.,,9

18. ATS charges Hazelwood a hefty sum to install and operate the Cameras. Uponinformation and belief, the cost of installing, operating and maintaining the Cameras isapproximately $50,000 per intersection with other costs and obligations each year. The averagestarting salary of a police officer in s t. Louis County Missouri is approximately $40,000 peryear. This absurdity of this disparity is highlighted when considering the Cameras perform oneautomated task, while an officer of the law can police and cite drivers for all traffic violationsincluding the validity of a driver's license and insurance, whether the driver is intoxicated, and ofcourse a police officer can fight all other crimes, all of which actually keeps our streets andcommunities safer.

19. ATS funds organizations whose purpose is to promote red light camera use in thestate of Missouri. One such organization is Missouri Families for Safer Roads (MFSR).Defendant Hazelwood's Police Chief Carl Wolf is the President ofMFSR, is the only listedcorporate officer ofMFSR, and is a member of the Board of Directors. 10 In addition, MFSR'smedia spokesman Scott Charton was simultaneously employed by ATS.I1 ATS recruited ChiefWolf to essentially market and promote ATS and red light cameras. Upon information and9 R ed L ig ht, G re en L ig ht, http://www.riverfronttimes.coml2006-02-01lnews/red-light-green-lightl10 Missouri Secretary of State filings, https:llwww.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskblFilings.asp?2752166#IICourt throws out red-light camera system, The Joplin Globe, available athttp://www.allbusiness.comllegaVtrial-procedure- fmes-penaltiesI14049992-1.html; see also FakeWebsites ~ Scamera Firms have no shame, http://wrongonred.comlindex-4.html.

10
http://www.riverfronttimes.coml2006-02-01lnews/red-light-green-lightlhttp://www.allbusiness.comllegavtrial-procedure-/http://wrongonred.comlindex-4.html./http://wrongonred.comlindex-4.html./http://www.allbusiness.comllegavtrial-procedure-/http://www.riverfronttimes.coml2006-02-01lnews/red-light-green-lightl


11/60

b elief, C hief Wo lf, a s th e p resid en t an d so le co rp orate o fficer o f MFSR an d as an u no fficial ATSsp ok esm an , h as accep ted g ifts an d o th er g ratu ities from ATS .

20. In addition, A TS established, funds, and directly controls the N ational C oalition forS afer R oad s (NCSR), w hich is ano th er sh am organ ization created fo r th e so le pu rp ose ofman ipula tin g re se arc h a nd pub lic s uppo rt inorder to fo ist A TS ' cam era system s up on th e streetsof M isso uri. N CSR h as th ree d irecto rs, w ho are also em ployees of A TS : Jam es T uton , C harlesTe rr it o, a nd George H itner .12 Infact, T uto n is th e p resident and CEO o f ATS ; H itn er is g en eralcounsel for A TS; and Territo is the official m edia spokesm an for A TS. N CSR also adm its it is"su pp orted b y American T raffic S olu tio ns" .1 3 Ads ru n b y NCSR h av e featu red H azelw oo dPolic e C hief Wo lf p on tificatin g th e p ro pag an da o f ATS reg ard in g red lig ht cam era sy stem s. 1 4

21. Through organizations like M FSR and NCSR , D efendant A TS and/or H azelw ood'sag en t C arl Wo lf co nceal, o r are reck lessly in differen t toward s, ev id en ce sh ow in g red lig htcam era s in crease crash es an d in ju ries. MFSR u ses scare tactics an d u ses m an ip ulated statisticsto p ersu ad e th e p ub lic th at w ith ou t red lig ht cam eras M isso uri commun ities are risk in g life an dlim b each tim e th ey d riv e.

22. A TS is the first party to receive and review im ages of potential red light cam eraviolatio ns befo re sen din g these im ag es to H azelw oo d, w ho then issu es a citatio n in th e fo rm o f aNotice o f V io latio n ("C itatio n"). U po n in fo rm atio n an d b elief, th ere are tim es whenH azelw oo d's p olice o fficers do no t rev iew th ese im ages to d eterm in e w hether a violatio n hasactu ally o ccu rred , w hich resu lts in emplo yees o f ATS , n ot o fficers o f th e law , d eterm in in g12Missouri Secretary of State filings, https:llwww.sos.mo.gov/BusinessEntity/soskblFilings.asp?3146789#13 Adsfor red-light cameras have familiar backers, http://www.pitch.comlplog/archives/2011103/16/ads-for-red-light-cameras-have-familiar-backers.14 National Coalition for Safer Roads Releases Second Advertisement Promoting the Benefits of Red LightSafety Cameras inMissouri, http://www.pmewswire.comlnews-releases/national-coalition-for-safer-roads-releases-second-advertisement-promoting-the-benefits-of-red-light-safety-cameras-in-missouri-118380824.html.

11


12/60

whether a violation occurred and then issuing a Citation.23. The penalty for violating the Ordinance is currently $100.00. Defendants set the cost

of the fine sufficiently high in order to build in a cushion allowing for Defendant ATS to be paidits contractually agreed-upon cut of each fine, while still leaving Defendant Hazelwood alucrative revenue stream.

24. Under Missouri law, violations of municipal ordinances are quasi-criminal in nature.25. The State of Missouri specifically recognizes that the violation of a traffic signal is

criminal in nature or effect. Mo. Rev. Stat. 304.281 defines a traffic violation as a class Cmisdemeanor and Mo. Rev. Stat. 558.011 states that such class C misdemeanors are punishableby a term not to exceed fifteen days imprisonment.

26. Misdemeanors of all classes are governed by the Missouri Rilles of CriminalProcedure under which citizens are afforded all procedural protections available in Missouri'scriminal tribunals. See Mo. Rev. Stat. 543.220, and Mo. R. Crim. P. 19.01.

27. The Ordinance, despite Defendants' attempts to make it appear civil, is criminal innature or effect because the Ordinance includes imprisonment as a mechanism for enforcing theOrdinance.

28. As part of Defendants' pitiful attempt to make the Ordinance appear civil in nature,the Ordinance states that "under no circumstances maya person be imprisoned" for a Cameraviolation. Yet, inconflict with itself, the Ordinance goes on to enumerate circumstances that doallow for the Accused to be arrested and imprisoned, i.e., for failure to timely pay the Citation orfailure to timely provide a sworn statement that the prosecutor deems "sufficient".

29. The Ordinance states: "Any person who shall fail to respond to a citation or letterissued under [the Ordinance] by timely payment of fine or by timely and sufficient statement ...

12


13/60

shall be subject to prosecution ... for violation of this Section subject to the general penaltyprovisions of Section 100.130, in addition to any other applicable liabilities or sanctions."(emphasis added).

30. Hazelwood's general penalty provision, 100.130, (the "General Penalty Provision")states in relevant part: "the violation of any such provision of this Code or any such ordinance ...shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonmentin the City or County Jailor other safe place of confmement not to exceed ninety (90) days or byboth such [me and imprisonment ...." (emphasis added).

31. As such, the Ordinance is criminal in nature or effect because it bootstraps theGeneral Penalty Provision's imprisonment punishment into the Ordinance for the intendedpurpose of putting the Accused inapprehension of imprisonment in order to effectuate paymentof the Citation.

32 . In addition to the Ordinance, Hazelwood actively threatens the Accused with arrestand imprisonment of up to 90 days for any Accused who does not pay the penalty; does notsubmit a sworn statement, or submits a sworn statement the municipal prosecutor deemsinsufficient or false. See Notice to Appear directed to Plaintiffs Tolman, attached as Exhibit 3,pg.3 and 4.

33. Indeed, because Hazelwood's Ordinance impermissibly places liability on"ownership, without regard to whether the owner was operating the motor vehicle at the time ofthe violation", Hazelwood will still arrest and imprison the Accused who appears before themunicipal court to mount a defense by identifying the actual driver but who refuses to pay.

34. Hazelwood's Ordinance also states that "if there is more than one (1) owner of themotor vehicle, a citation may be completed and addressed to any or all of them and such owner

13


14/60

shall be jointly and severally liable hereunder." As such, the Ordinance is also unlawful andirrational because only one owner or person can actually be driving the vehicle at the time of theviolation.

35. Thus, in the very common circumstance of spouses, such as Plaintiffs Mark and JulietTolman, who are joint owners of a motor vehicle, the Ordinance allows Hazelwood to imprisonboth spouses even if they respond to the Citation by going to court and arguing that when theyreceived the notice of violation several weeks after the violation occurred they cannot honestlyrecall who was driving the vehicle at that particular point intime. Both spouses can also beimprisoned if they submit a sworn statement that the prosecutor deems insufficient or if they justrefuse to pay because the Ordinance impermissibly limits their defenses.

36. Since this class action concerns an alleged violation of a criminal or quasi-criminalmunicipal ordinance and the alleged criminal violation of a traffic-control device, a Missouricourt must apply the criminal standard of proof; therefore, Defendant Hazelwood is obligated bylaw to prove the guilt of Plaintiffs and Class beyond a reasonable doubt. It cannot.

37. Because municipal ordinances are quasi-criminal in nature, the Ordinance may notshift the burden of persuasion on an element of an offense to the Accused. The burden ofproving the guilt of the Accused on each element beyond a reasonable doubt must rest withDefendant Hazelwood.

38. The fact that the Cameras are not able to identify the actual driver of the vehicle iscertainly reasonable doubt that Plaintiffs and Class, as vehicle owners, were the drivers at thetime of the violation.

39. Defendants' red light camera program involves placing cameras at intersections, thelocation of which are to be determined "from time to time by the City Traffic Engineer." The

14


15/60

Cameras are used simply to take photos and video images of purported red light violations, butcannot identify the actual driver as required under Missouri law. The Cameras are, by design,not able to identify the actual driver and Defendant Hazelwood's prosecution of Plaintiffs andClass, pursuant to the Ordinance, is not based on proving the Accused was the driver at the timeof the offense; as Hazelwood has unlawfully established that "liability is based on ownership,without regard to whether the owner was operating the motor vehicle at the time of theviolation."

40. Hazelwood chose to use the single camera "rear-only" system rather than asystem with multiple cameras, which could capture images of the driver, because it was lessexpensive; that is, a single camera system was the most cost-effective means of turning a profitat the expense of Missourians.

41. The Ordinance would not meet Defendants' ultimate money-making goal if theOrdinance was conditioned upon sending Citations to the actual driver, as required by Missouristate law. Hazelwood and ATS purposefully do not require proof of who was driving at the time

of the violation so that Hazelwood and ATS can easily mail the citation and exact monies fromvehicle owner(s). The Camera program would fail if the Ordinance required identification of theactual drivers, instead of merely accusing and prosecuting vehicle owners.

42. The Ordinance states the Camera program is for the "purpose of detectingviolations of public safety at intersections" but yet is not, and does not purport to be, a rule of theroad or a traffic regulation.

43. The State of Missouri authorizes Hazelwood's use oflaw enforcement officials topolice and enforce all applicable rules of the road and traffic regulations. As required byMissouri law, police officers cite actual drivers of vehicles who violate traffic signals. And,

15


16/60

upon information and belief, Defendant Hazelwood expressly or impliedly instructs and/orsuggests that police officers not patrol intersections with Cameras. This results in police officersavoiding busy andlor dangerous intersections where such officers could detain intoxicateddrivers, distracted drivers, dangerous drivers, and enforce a myriad of other laws that wouldpromote public safety, in addition to citing the actual drivers who violate traffic signals.

44. Common sense dictates that the Ordinance is not for the purpose of detectingviolations of public safety at intersections because:

a. Defendants do not prosecute, and fail to hold liable, the actual driver whoviolated public safety;

b. Defendants misclassify red light moving violations as non moving infractionsto avoid assessing points, which means no driver will be removed from theroad for violating red light signals;

c. Hazelwood already has a reliable (and better) system to detect violations ofpublic safety at intersections, i.e., police officers;

d. Hazelwood and ATS have not installed red light cameras at the mostdangerous intersections;

e. Upon information and belief, Hazelwood instructs or discourages its policeofficers from patrolling intersections where red light cameras are installed inorder to save money and resources, resulting in a decrease of safety for thoseintersections.

45. About a month after a violation occurs, Defendant ATS andlor Hazelwood mails aNotice of Violation to the vehicle owner(s) who becomes the Accused.

16


17/60

46. The Notice of Violation also contains a startling and perplexing sworn statementfrom a Hazelwood police officer that "I, KNOWING THAT FALSE STATEMENTS ON THISFORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY LAW, STATE THAT I HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TOBELIEVE THAT: [Plaintiffs or Class Members] ... DID THEN AND THERE COMMIT THEFOLLOWING OFFENSE: Violation of Public Safety Failure to Stop at a Red Light." SeeNotice of Violation for Plaintiffs Mark and Juliet Tolman, attached hereto as Exhibit 3.Ironically, while Hazelwood misclassifies violations of the Ordinance as a non-movinginfraction, the Notice of Violation also falsely states the vehicle owner "DID UNLAWFULL YOPERATE / DRIVE."

47. Clearly, a police officer cannot truthfully state that he or she has "probable cause"that, for example, Mark Tolman or Juliet Tolman committed the offense of running a red lightbecause there is absolutely no proof that either was behind the wheel and it is obviously absurdto believe they were both driving the same vehicle at the same time.

48. And without being able to identify the driver, it's also true that a police officer

cannot have "probable cause" that either Mark Tolman or Juliet Tolman committed the offense.At best, an officer may have "reasonable suspicion" that one or the other committed the offense;however, Defendants know that they cannot issue a Notice of Violation (aka an "Information")without probable cause.

49. The Notice of Violation does not contain a court date. See Exhibit 3.50. Ifthe Accused knows how and has the time and resources, the Accused would

have.to obtain a copy of the Ordinance to determine the defenses afforded to him by Hazelwood,which are also unconstitutionally limited.

17


18/60

51. According to the Ordinance, the Accused will only be "excused" fromHazelwood's inquisitorial prosecution and saved from punishment if the Accused can provide a"sufficient" sworn statement of innocence based on one of its limited "justified" reasons.

52. By requiring the Accused to swear under oath andlor penalty of perjury, that he orshe satisfies one of the "justifications" under the Ordinance, the Accused are compelled to testifyin order to prove their innocence without being afforded the constitutional presumption ofinnocence.

53. The Ordinance is unconstitutional because it authorizes a taking of propertywithout due process oflaw by imposing penalties on ownership of a vehicle in an arbitrary,unreasonable, and capricious manner without a fair hearing and without adequate proceduralprotections.

54. Unless this Court finds that generating revenue at the expense of safer roads is avalid government purpose, the Ordinance is also unconstitutional because it is not rationallyrelated to any valid government purpose. There is no rational basis for Defendant Hazelwood tocircumvent a Missouri state law designed to keep dangerous drivers off the road (i.e., Mo. Rev.Stat. 302.225 and 302.302). There is no rational basis for Defendant Hazelwood tomisclassify a red light violation (which is a moving violation under Missouri law, 302.010) as a"non moving infraction" to avoid the Missouri drivers license point-system, other than todecrease the number of contested red light camera cases and increase the number of cameratickets paid. Moreover, the Ordinance does not create a rule of the road or regulate traffic. Thered light camera Ordinance's purpose is to simply generate revenue based on vehicle ownership.

55. As defined by Mo. Rev. Stat. 302.010(12), a moving violation is a violation that,by its very nature and character, requires the vehicle to be in motion at the time of the violation.

18


19/60

56. Defendants erroneously and illogically describe violations of the Ordinance asakin to parking violations. Yet, to commit a red light violation a vehicle must be movingthrough the intersection during a red light. IS

57. Missouri law, 302.302.1(1), requires that any moving violation cause theassessment of two points to the violator's driver's license.

58. Missouri law, 302.225.1, also requires that every court with jurisdiction overmoving violation offenses report to the Department of Revenue within seven days of any "pleaor finding of guilty of any person in the court for a violation of ... [section 302.302]."

59. Defendant Hazelwood deliberately fails to report pleas or findings of guilt forviolation of the Ordinance to the Department of Revenue, thus circumventing a Missouri lawdesigned to make our roads safer.

60. For the purpose of discouraging the Accused from defending a Camera Citation,Defendant Hazelwood intentionally exempted itself, without State authority, from therequirement mandating that each red light violation be assessed two points on the driver'slicense. Inthis manner, Hazelwood and ATS ensure they will squeeze maximum revenue fromMissouri Citizens while decreasing the likelihood and ability of the Accused to contest CameraCitations.

61. But even when the Accused does attempt to defend by appearing at the municipalcourt hearing, Hazelwood prohibits the Accused from adducing evidence of the actual driver,and further limits the defenses available to those defenses specifically enumerated within theOrdinance.

15 The M isso uri S up reme Cou rt h as sta te d th at re d lig ht c am era v io la tio ns a re movin g v io la tio ns. See Cityo f Spring field v , B elt, 307 S .W .3 d 649 (M o. ban e 2 010) (Ina unanimous dec is ion vo id ing Sp ring fie ld 'sre d lig ht c am era p ro gram o n d ue p ro cess g ro un ds, S up rem e C ou rt Ju stice W olff stated th at re d lig htc ame ra v io la ti on s a re movi ng v io la tio n s) .19


20/60

62. Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass I further state that,

pursuant to the alleged Ordinance violation, their payment of$100 was involuntary and not anadmission of guilt or liability because Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1acted under duress as a result of Defendant's threats to arrest and imprison the Accused.

63. Because Defendant Hazelwood's prosecution of the Ordinance is void and theprosecution of the Ordinance failed to conform to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules, the 21 stJudicial Circuit never acquired jurisdiction; thus, the payments made by Plaintiff Hunter were anullity and Defendants must refund such payments or it will be unjustly enriched.

64. Defendant Hazelwood's creation and enforcement of the Ordinance, andDefendant ATS' enticement of Hazelwood to contract with them as well as ATS' installation andoperation of the red light cameras, constitutes wrongful conduct.

65. Hazelwood collected an arbitrary [me, in the amount of $100.00 pursuant to theCitation, from Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1.

66. Hazelwood is attempting to collect an arbitrary fine, inthe amount of $100.00pursuant to the Citation, from Subclass 2 and the Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 2.

67. Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 contend that Defendantsare legally obligated to refund all monies paid pursuant to the Ordinance.

68. Moreover, the payment of$100 by Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs RepresentingSubclass 1 was not an admission of guilt or liability because pursuant to MSCR 37.57 "nodefendant shall either be tried or permitted to enter a plea of guilty unless the defendant ispersonally present or the judge, defendant, and prosecutor consent to such trial or plea in thedefendant's absence."

20


21/60

69. Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1paid the fine under thereasonable, but mistaken, belief that the Ordinance was valid.

70. The payment of$100 by Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass1was not an admission of guilt or liability pursuant to MSCR 37.58(c).

71. Plaintiffs and Class further allege the $100 fine imposed for violating theOrdinance is in essence a fee assessed to vehicle owners, not the actual drivers, and such a feeviolates Article 10 22 of the Missouri Constitution by imposing such fees without a vote of thepeople.

72. Hazelwood and ATS, through their agreement andlor understanding, created andused the unlawful, void and invalid Ordinance for the purpose of extracting monies fromPlaintiffs and Class. Defendants acted in furtherance of their agreement on multiple occasions,including but not limited to, manipulating or concealing studies regarding the effectiveness of theCameras, failing to investigate engineering changes/modifications at intersections before theCameras were installed that would have made intersections safer, installing and operating theCameras at intersections in the City of Hazelwood, sending of photographs and images fromATS to Hazelwood and other acts committed by Defendants in furtherance of their agreement toextract monies from Plaintiffs and Class by means of the Ordinance and Camera program.

73. The Ordinance and Defendants' conduct violate the fundamental rights ofPlaintiffs and Class; rights that are absolutely guaranteed under the Missouri Constitution.

74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Subclass 1and NamedPlaintiffs Representing Subclass 1were injured, while Hazelwood and ATS were unjustlyenriched.

21


22/60

75. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct, Subclass 2 and NamedPlaintiffs Representing Subclass 2 face irreparable harm if an injunction is not granted.

76. Based on publica11y available data, Defendants' conduct has damaged Plaintiffs

and Class in excess of $25,000, but under no circumstances does the amount in controversyexceed the sum or value of $5,000,000.

PARTIES77. This action is brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a proposed class

of persons defmed as all Missouri citizens who received a red light camera Citation pursuant tothe Ordinance from the date the first Citation was issued until the date a class is certified by theCourt (hereinafter "Class" or "the proposed Class"), and who fall within the following twosubclasses:

a. Missouri citizens who received a Citation pursuant to the Ordinance and paid thefme (hereinafter "Subclass 1"); and

b. Missouri citizens who received a Citation pursuant to the Ordinance, but have not

paid the fine and have at least one outstanding Citation (hereinafter "Subclass 2").78. Plaintiffs and Class reside in the State of Missouri and are Missouri citizens.79. Dana Hunter (flk/a Dana Brakeen) paid the $100.00 penalty, under protest, after

receiving a Citation in the mail.80. Juliet Tolman also received a Citation inthe mail and paid the $100.00 penalty.81. Dana Hunter and Juliet Tolman both reside in Missouri and are Missouri citizens

(hereinafter "Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1").82. Mark Tolman and Juliet Tolman are married, residing together in St. Louis

County and are both Missouri citizens. They received a Citation that charged both of them with

22


23/60

violating the Ordinance, but they have not paid the $100.00 penalty (hereinafter the "NamedPlaintiffs Representing Subclass 2).

83. Defendant Hazelwood is a municipal city located within St. Louis County

operating under the laws of the State of Missouri; Defendant Hazelwood is the governmentalentity responsible for passing the Ordinance, and was also responsible for codifying it into theMunicipal Code of the City of Hazelwood.

84. Defendant ATS is a for-profit private corporation with its principle place ofbusiness in the State of Arizona. ATS markets, installs, operates, and/or maintains, red lightcamera and speed camera products and services to and/or for municipal governments throughoutthe country.

85. ATS contracted with Hazelwood in Missouri to install and operate the red lightcamera program. Defendants work together to issue and enforce red light camera Citations.

86. Plaintiffs and Class are vehicle owners and Missouri citizens who receivedCitations via mail for allegedly violating the Ordinance.

JURISDICTION87. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant ATS because ATS has done business

in the State of Missouri. has contracted with a Missouri entity (Hazelwood), has violatedMissouri law in the State of Missouri, and has sufficient continuing and minimum contacts withthe State of Missouri as to purposeful avail itself of the benefits and protections offered by thisState and ATS could reasonably expect to be haled into court inthis State.

88. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant Hazelwood because it was formedunder the laws of the State of Missouri and is located within the County of St. Louis.

89. All relevant conduct giving rise to this action took place in the County of St.

23


24/60

Louis, within the State of Missouri; thus, this Court has jurisdiction over this action and theparties.

90. Plaintiffs and Class are all Missouri citizens, many of whom reside inthe Countyof s t. Louis.

91. Plaintiffs and Class seek a refund of all monies paid to Defendants pursuant to theOrdinance, which based on public ally available data is inexcess of $25,000, but under nocircumstances does the amount incontroversy exceed the sum or value of $5,000,000.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS92. This case is brought, and can be properly maintained, as a Class Action

represented by Plaintiffs pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 52.08.93. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all Missouri citizens who received

a Citation pursuant to the Ordinance and who have either paid the fine to Defendant (Subclass 1)or have not paid the fine (Subclass 2).

94. The Class is believed to comprise thousands of Missouri Citizens, the joinder of

whom is impracticable. The members of the Class are so numerous that it is impractical to bringall of them before the Court in this action.

95. Excluded from the defmed Class is the judge to whom this case is assigned,Defendants ATS and Hazelwood, Hazelwood's elected officials and representatives, and allthose who validly and timely opt-out of the certified Class.

96. Plaintiffs Dana Hunter and Juliet Tolman bring this action on behalf ofthemselves and Subclass 1 against Defendants to recover the amount of the fines paid pursuant tothe Ordinance.

24


25/60

97. The amount of damages suffered individually by each member of Subclass 1 is sosmall as to make an individual suit for its recovery economically impracticable and/or unfeasible.

98. Class treatment of the claims asserted herein will provide substantial benefit toboth the parties and the court system. A well-defined commonality of interest in the questions oflaw and fact involved affects Plaintiffs and the proposed Class.

99. There are common questions of law and fact applicable to the claims asserted onbehalf of the Class. The common questions include, but are not limited to, whether:

a. The Ordinance is in conflict with Missouri state law(s);b. The Ordinance is void or invalid;c. The Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face and/or as applied;d. Defendants have circumvented or misclassified any Missouri state law;e. Hazelwood did not have authority to enact the Ordinance;f. Hazelwood did not have authority to create a rule of evidence in the Ordinance;g. The Ordinance is unlawful because it establishes guilt by reason of ownership of

the vehicle identified inthe Citation;h. The issuance of Citations, and the prosecution of the Ordinance under the

circumstances described inthis Petition, deprives Plaintiffs and Class of dueprocess of law;

i. Subclass 2 and Plaintiffs representing Subclass 2 are entitled to injunctive relief;J. Subclass 1 and Plaintiffs representing Subclass 1have a right to recover the fmes

paid.100. The claims of Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 are typical of the claims

of Subclass 1.

25


26/60

101. The claims of Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 2 are typical of the claimsof Subclass 2.

102. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the

proposed Class and Subclasses. Plaintiffs do not have any interest antagonistic to those of theClass and Subclasses. Plaintiffs have retained competent and experienced counsel in theprosecution of this type oflitigation. The questions oflaw and fact common to the members ofthe Class overwhelmingly predominate over any questions affecting only individual members ofthe Class.

103. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficientadjudication of this controversy because members of the Class number inthe thousands andindividual joinder is impracticable. The expenses and burden of individual litigation wouldmake it impracticable or impossible for proposed members of the Class to prosecute their claimsindividually. Trial of Plaintiffs' claims is manageable.

104. Unless a class is certified, Defendants will retain monies received as a result of its

unlawful conduct and scheme to collect monies from Plaintiffs and Class. Unless a class-wideinjunction is issued, Defendants will continue to violate Missouri law resulting inharm toMissouri citizens.

105. For these reasons, this case is maintainable as a class action pursuant to MissouriRule of Civil Procedure 52.08.

COUNTI: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT106. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this

Class Action Petition as if fully set forth herein.107. Anactual and genuine justifiable controversy exists, between Defendants on the

one hand and Plaintiffs and Class on the other, concerning the validity of the Ordinance, the26


27/60

rights of Plaintiff and Class, and the legality of Defendants' conduct as described in this Petition,which has resulted, or imminently will result, in depriving Plaintiffs and Class of their property,their rights and their liberties.

108. Pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 527.010 e t s eq and Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure87, Plaintiffs request declaratory judgment concerning the following:

a. Whether the Ordinance is void as a matter of law because it conflicts with and/oris contrary to Missouri state law (Mo. Rev. Stat. 304.271.1 and 304.281.1);

b. Whether Hazelwood had authority to enact the Ordinance;c. Whether the Ordinance is void as a matter oflaw because it conflicts with and/or

is contrary to Missouri's state laws mandating the assessment of points formoving violations (Mo. Rev. Stat. 302.225,302.302,302.010(12;

d. Whether Defendant(s) have authority to reclassify violations of steady red lighttraffic signals (a moving violation under Missouri law) as non moving infractions;

e. Whether it is lawful for the Ordinance to establish strict liability "based on

ownership, without regard to whether the owner was operating the motor vehicleat the time of the violation";

f. Whether Defendant(s) can lawfully prosecute vehicle owners if the owner was notdriving at the time of the violation;

g. Whether the Ordinance and/or Defendant(s) conduct violates Article I 19 of theMissouri Constitution in that the Accused are compelled to testify in order toprove their innocence;

h. Whether the Ordinance violates Article I 10 of the Missouri Constitution in thatthe Ordinance deprives Plaintiffs and Class of due process oflaw; and

27


28/60

1. If the Ordinance or Defendants' Camera program is found unlawful, whetherSubclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 are entitled to recoverthe payments made under the Ordinance.

109. Despite Defendants knowledge of this controversy, Subclass 1 and NamedPlaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 have received no refunds of the fmes paid, and Plaintiffs andClass have been made aware of no change inthe Ordinance or Defendants' conduct.

110. As such, an actual and genuine controversy exists between the Parties, and thisCourt is vested with the power to declare the rights and liabilities of the Parties with regard to theOrdinance andlor Missouri laws.

111. Because the Ordinance and Defendant Hazelwood prohibit the Accused fromasserting certain legal and factual defenses, as described in this Petition, there exists noalternative remedy for Plaintiffs and Class to redress their injuries andlor rights.

112. Pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. 527.010 e t se q and Missouri Rille of Civil Procedure87, the Circuit Courts of this State, not Hazelwood's municipal court, have the power to declare

rights affected by statutes and municipal ordinances. As a result, there exists no alternativeremedy for Plaintiffs and Class to redress their injuries andlor rights other than in this Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Class respectfully request this Court enter a DeclaratoryJudgment declaring the Ordinance void, invalid and/or unconstitutional, and further order that allpending red light camera Citations be dismissed and that Defendants disgorge all moniesunjustly collected under the Ordinance, as well as all relief sought in the Request for Relief setforth at the end of this Petition and any other relief this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II: UNJUST ENRICHMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT HAZELWOOD113. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this

28


29/60

Class Action Petition as iffully set forth herein.114. For the reasons set forth in this Petition, the Ordinance is void, invalid, and! or

unconstitutional.

115. As such, it is unlawful, inequitable, and unjust for Defendant Hazelwood to issueCitations, prosecute vehicle owners, collect fines, andlor otherwise subject Plaintiffs and Class toarrest and imprisonment pursuant to the Ordinance.

116. Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 conferred a benefit onDefendant by making payments to Hazelwood pursuant to the unlawful and void Ordinance.

117. Defendant Hazelwood has accepted and retained monies paid by Subclass 1 andNamed Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 in the form of fines, costs, and fees pursuant to theunlawful and void Ordinance.

118. Hazelwood acknowledged receipt of the unjust benefit conferred by Subclass 1and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 by treating the payment of the fine as satisfactionof the penalty for violating the Ordinance and by ceasing to pursue further legal action against

Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1.119. Because the Ordinance is unlawful or void, it would be unjust for Hazelwood to

retain any benefit in the form of fines paid by Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs RepresentingSubclass 1.

120. Hazelwood possesses monies which rightfully belong to Subclass 1 and NamedPlaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 because these monies were collected by means of an unlawfulor void Ordinance, and which in good conscience ought to be paid back to Subclass 1 andNamed Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1.

29


30/60

121. As such, it is unjust, inequitable, and/or unconscionable for Hazelwood to retainmonies paid by Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 pursuant to theOrdinance.

122. As a result of the Ordinance and Hazelwood's conduct, Hazelwood has beenunjustly enriched at the expense of Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 inexcess of$25,000.

123. Plaintiffs and Class claim all legal and equitable remedies, including restitution,which they are entitled by law to recover from Hazelwood for the injuries and losses set forthherein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Class pray for the relief requested in the Request for Relief setforth at the end of this Petition.

COUNT HI: VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I 19OF THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION AGAINST DEFENDANT HAZELWOOD124. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this

Class Action Petition as if fully set forth herein.125. Article I 19 of the Missouri Constitution states "that no person shall be

compelled to testify against himself in a criminal cause .... "126. Article I 19 of the Missouri Constitution establishes and identifies the privilege

against self-incrimination.127. The presumption of innocence and the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond

a reasonable doubt are inextricable corollaries of Missouri's privilege against self-incriminationand the accusatorial system of justice in this country.

128. By requiring vehicle owners charged with a red light camera violation to attemptto prove one of Defendant Hazelwood's limited "justifications," the Accused are forced to prove

30


31/60

their innocence without being afforded the constitutional presumption of innocence, and are thuscompelled to testify in order to overcome the Ordinance's presumption of guilt.

129. Plaintiffs and Class are compelled to testify, to prove their innocence, by either amaking a sworn statement under penalty of perjury or appearing in court under oath.

130. Since this Class Action concerns an alleged violation of an Ordinance thatauthorizes imprisonment, and/or the violation is predicated on a Missouri criminal law, Plaintiffsand Class must, and shall, be afforded the rights and protections of the Missouri Constitution,including the privilege against self-incrimination.

131. However, Hazelwood, through its Ordinance, violates this constitutional right bycompelling Plaintiffs and Class to testify in order to avoid penalty, including potentialimprisonment.

132. By prosecuting Plaintiffs and Class under such an unconstitutional Ordinance,Defendant Hazelwood requires Plaintiffs and Class to pay a fine while denying them theirconstitutional rights.

133. As a result of Defendant Hazelwood's conduct and its Ordinance, Subclass 1 andNamed Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 had their Article I 19 constitutional rights violatedand were injured thereby inexcess of $25,000.

134. As a result of Defendant Hazelwood's conduct and its Ordinance, Subclass 2 andNamed Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 2 have, or will have, their Article I 19 constitutionalrights violated and will thus suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not enter an injunction orother equitable relief.

135. Plaintiffs and Class claim all legal and equitable remedies they are entitled by lawto recover from Defendant for the injuries and losses set forth herein.

31


32/60

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and Class pray for the relief requested in the Request forRelief set forth at the end of this Petition.

COUNT IV: VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I 10OF THE MISSOURI CONSTITUTION AGAINST DEFENDANT HAZELWOOD

136. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of thisClass Action Petition as iffully set forth herein.

137. Article I 10 of the Missouri Constitution states "that no person shall be deprivedoflife, liberty or property without due process of law,"

138. Plaintiffs and Class had, and have, an established constitutional right not to be

deprived of their personal property, in the form of fines paid to Defendant Hazelwood, withoutdue process of law.

139. Plaintiffs and Class had, and have, an established constitutional right to a fairhearing in which they can assert all of the legal and factual defenses available to them.

140. Plaintiffs and Class had, and have, an established constitutional right to a fairhearing in which they are afforded the presumption of innocence, are not required to testify toprove innocence, and are not prosecuted under unlawful ordinance.

141. The Ordinance conflicts with the fundamental rights and protections afforded byArticle I 10 of the Missouri Constitution and is thus unconstitutional because the Ordinanceauthorizes a taking of property and potential imprisonment without due process of law byimposing penalties on the Accused in an arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious manner without

a fair hearing and without adequate procedural protections.142. The Ordinance is unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it deprives

the Accused of due process oflaw pursuant to Article I 10 of the Missouri Constitution byestablishing strict liability, andlor an unreasonable and conclusive presumption, related to

32


33/60

vehicle ow nership and operation, and further perm its a person to be punished, including a termof im prisonm ent, w ithout proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

143. Plaintiffs and Class were, and are, not afforded the crim inal standard of proof and

w ere thus denied due process of law .144. The Ordinance enumerates a lim ited number of affmnative defenses available to

the Accused by which he or she may be "excused" from penalty.145. It is irrational and unlaw ful for the O rdinance to hold vehicle ow ner(s) strictly

liable, w ithout regard to who was driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, and then toprosecute and penalize all ow ners of record jointly w ithout probable cause. A s such, theO rdinance violates A rt. I 10.

146. A city cannot create by ordinance a scheme that enlarges the common law orstatutory duty or liability of citizens am ong them selves. M oreover, a city has no power, bym unicipal ordinance, to create liability from one citizen to another, nor to relieve one citizenfrom that liability by im posing it on another.

147. Inaddition, according to Defendant Hazelw ood, the sw orn statem ent of theA ccused m ay not be "sufficient" enough to prove innocence because, after reviewing thestatem ent, the prosecutor m ay determ ine the sworn statem ent to be "insufficient" and mayre issu e th e C ita tio n.

148. Defendant Hazelwood and/or its Ordinance does not perm it the Accused todefend them selves by subm itting a sw orn statem ent or testifying at court that, for exam ple: i) theow ner w as not the driver at the tim e of the violation; ii) the presence of ice, snow, otherinclem ent w eather or other unusually hazardous conditions existed that w ould m ake com pliancew ith the Ordinance m ore dangerous under the circum stances than non-com pliance; or iii) the

33


34/60

vehicle owner(s) cannot honestly recall who the actual driver was at the time of the violationbecause the vehicle has more than one owner or the vehicle is periodically driven by non-owners(e.g., family members) and the length of time that has passed since the date of the violation andthe date the Accused received the Citation thereby renders determination of the actual driverunascertainable.

149. By shifting the burden of proof onto the Accused to prove their innocence and bylimiting the defenses available to Plaintiffs and Class to overcome the presumption of guilt, theOrdinance deprives Plaintiffs and Class of adequate due process protections.

150. The State of Missouri has conferred on Defendant Hazelwood, a municipality, thepower to "make additional rules of the road or traffic regulations to meet their needs and trafficconditions" through RSMo 304.120.2(1).

151. The State of Missouri has promulgated no legislation enabling DefendantHazelwood to enact the Ordinance or a red light camera program.

152. The State of Missouri has promulgated no legislation enabling DefendantHazelwood to enact an ordinance that holds vehicle owners strictly liable for violations of trafficcontrol signals, nor is there enabling legislation that allows Defendant Hazelwood to create a ruleof evidence inits municipal ordinances.

153. The Ordinance is not a rule of the road or a traffic regulation.154. Traffic in Hazelwood is already regulated by Missouri state law (Mo. Rev. Stat.

304.271.1 and 304.281.1), as well as Hazelwood's municipal code (315.030 and 315.060),both of which mandate that drivers shall obey all traffic control devices, including steady redtraffic lights.

155. The due process rights of Plaintiff and Class have been violated because the

34


35/60

Ordinance was enacted without proper authority from the State of Missouri, and the Ordinancedoes not enforce existing Missouri traffic laws. The Ordinance establishes strict liability "basedon ownership, without regard to whether the owner was operating the motor vehicle at the timeof the violation." As such, the Ordinance creates an unlawful regulation and jettisons the statelaw requirement that drivers shall be obey, and be liable for, traffic signal violations. Mo. Rev.Stat. 304.271.1,304.281.1.

156. It is a violation of due process for Plaintiffs and Class to be prosecuted under anordinance that is in conflict with Missouri law andlor establishes strict liability on vehicle ownersfor moving violations.

157. As a result of Defendant Hazelwood's conduct and its Ordinance, Subclass 1 andNamed Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 had their Article I 10 constitutional rights violatedand were injured thereby in excess of$25,000.

158. As a result of Defendant Hazelwood's conduct and its Ordinance, Subclass 2 andNamed Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 2 have, or will have, their Article I 10 constitutionalrights violated and will thus suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not enter an injunction orother equitable relief.

159. Plaintiffs and Class claim all legal and equitable remedies they are entitled by lawto recover from Defendant for the injuries and losses set forth herein.


COUNT V: CIVIL CONSPIRACYAGAINST DEFENDANT HAZELWOOD AND DEFENDANT ATS

160. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of thisClass Action Petition as if fully set forth herein.

35


36/60

161. Defendants Hazelwood and ATS formed a contract and/or agreement wherebythey worked in concert to carry out their purpose of using red light cameras to generate revenueby any, some, or all of the following methods:

a. Promulgation and enforcement of the Ordinance to serve as a basis for generatingrevenue for the benefit of ATS and Hazelwood;

b. Designing and enforcing a red light camera program that would deter the Accusedfrom contesting the Citation and instead pay the fine;

c. Reclassifying violations of red light signals as non moving infractions to avoidMissouri's drivers' license point system;

d. Surreptitious participation by Police Chief Wolf on behalf of Hazelwood inATS-backed organizations and Camera marketing endeavors;

e. Planning how many Cameras to install;f. Planning where to install the Cameras;g. Determining a dollar amount for the fine that would cover both Defendant ATS'

fees and costs, and also provide revenue to Hazelwood;h. Planning how to collect fmes from the Accused;1. Planning how to structure the processing, reviewing and sharing of images of

vehicles violating red light signals; andlorJ. Formulating a budget and plan regarding installation and maintenance of the

Cameras.162. Defendants Hazelwood and ATS communicated regularly and worked in concert

in multiple ways in order to establish and enforce the red light camera program.

36


37/60

163. Police Chief Carl Wolf. on behalf of Hazelwood. acted surreptitiously in concertwith ATS to promote public acceptance of red light cameras by appearing in advertisements andby acting as the corporate officer and a Board Member of an organization secretly funded andoperated by ATS.

164. Defendants knew and discussed the likelihood or potential that the Ordinancewould be found void because it conflicted with or was contrary to Missouri state laws.

165. Defendants knew and discussed the likelihood or potential that the Ordinancewould be found void because Hazelwood did not have authority to enact the Ordinance.

166. Defendant ATS had actual knowledge that the red light camera program wouldlikely violate Missouri law including circumvention of the Missouri point system mandated byMo. Rev. Stat. 302.302.1. See ATS legal opinion attached as Exhibit 2.

167. Upon information and belief. Defendant ATS counseled, offered advice and/orinstructed Defendant Hazelwood how to enforce the Ordinance so as to avoid potential legalconflicts that would affect the profitability of the Camera program.

168. Defendants distort, are recklessly indifferent towards. andlor disregard studies andstatistics that show red light cameras are not safe (e.g., increase the incidence of rear-endcollisions) andlor are not effective.

169. As such, Defendants conspired for the purpose of making money through anOrdinance which is void. unlawful, andlor unconstitutional.

170. As a result of the foregoing conduct, Subclass 1 and Named PlaintiffsRepresenting Subclass 1 have been damaged in the form of monies unjustly collected byDefendants pursuant to red light camera program in excess of$25,000.

37


38/60

171. As a result of the foregoing conduct, Subclass 2 and Named PlaintiffsRepresenting Subclass 2 are being unlawfully prosecuted and threatened with arrest andimprisonment.


COUNT VI: UNJUST ENRICHMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT ATS172. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of this

Class Action Petition as if fully set forth herein.173. The red light camera program and the Ordinance are unlawful, void, conflict with

Missouri state law, and violate the Missouri Constitution for multiple reasons, as shown above,including the fundamental rights of Plaintiffs and Class.

174. Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 conferred a benefit onDefendant ATS by paying the fine, which Hazelwood, pursuant to its agreement with DefendantATS, then distributed a portion of said fine payments to Defendant ATS for installing and

operating the Cameras.175. After receiving said payments, Defendant ATS recognized that a benefit was

conferred by receiving money from the Accused through Hazelwood andlor performing recordkeeping functions to document incoming funds from Hazelwood on behalf of Subclass 1 andNamed Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1.

176. Defendant ATS has accepted and retained monies in the form offines, costs, andfees paid by Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 pursuant to the Ordinanceand Defendants' red light camera program.

38


39/60

177. Because the Ordinance is void and unlawful, it would be unjust for ATS to retainany benefit in the form of monies paid by Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs RepresentingSubclass 1.

178. ATS possesses monies which rightfully belong to Subclass 1 and NamedPlaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 because these monies were collected by means of a void andunlawful Ordinance, and which in good conscience ought to be paid back to Subclass 1 andNamed Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1.

179. As such, it is unjust, inequitable, and/or unconscionable for ATS to retain moniespaid by Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs Representing Subclass 1 pursuant to the Ordinance.

180. As a result of the Defendants' red light camera program and ATS's conduct, ATShas been unjustly enriched at the expense of Subclass 1 and Named Plaintiffs RepresentingSubclass 1.

181. Plaintiffs and Class claim all legal and equitable remedies, including restitution,which they are entitled by law to recover from Hazelwood for the injuries and losses set forthherein.


REQUEST FOR RELIEFWHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and members of proposed Class pray for the following relief:A. A Declaratory Judgment on the rights and issues set forth in Count I herein;B. An order certifying the Class as requested herein;C. An order appointing The Simon Law Finn, P.C., as lead counsel for the Class;D. A judgment awarding restitution and/or compensatory damages to Plaintiffs and

39


40/60

members of the Class;E. A judgment awarding equitable or injunctive relief as permitted by law or equity

including a preliminary and/or permanent injunction enjoining Defendants fromcontinuing the unlawful conduct as set forth herein and directing Defendants toidentify, with Court supervision, members of the Class and pay them restitutionand disgorgement of all monies acquired by Defendants by means of any code orordinance declared by this Court to be unlawful;

F. A judgment awarding attorneys' fees and costs;G. Providing such further relief as may be fair and reasonable.

JURy TRIAL DEMANDPlaintiffs and Class demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

THE SIMON LAW FI P.c.By ~~~----------------John ampbell #59318Ry A. Keane #62112800 Market Street, Suite 1700St. Louis, MO 63101Phone: 314-241-2929Fax: [email protected]@simonlawpc.comAttorneys for Plaintiffs

40
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


41/60

CTS - Document Page 4 of8

B. This Section shall not apply at railroad grade crossings. Conduct of drivers of vehiclesapproaching railroad grade crossings shall be governed by the rules as set forth in Section 335.090of this Title. (CC 1997 18.32)

SECTION 315.090: LANE DIRECTION CONTROL SIGNALSWhen lane direction control signals are placed over the individual lanes of a street or highway,vehicular traffic may travel in any lane over which a green signal is shown, but shall not enter ortravel in any lane over-which a red signal is shown. (CC 1997 18.33)

SECTION 315.095: VIOLATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS AND THEAUTOMATED PHOTO ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALREGULATIONS

A. Definitions. As used in this Section, the following terms shall have these prescribedmeanings:AU TOMATED PHO TO TR AF FIC EN FO RC EMEN T SYSTEM ' A system that:

1. Consists of camera(s) and vehicle sensor(s) installed to work in conjunction with anelectrically operated traffic control signal; and2. Is capable of producing high resolution color digital recorded images that show:

a. The traffic control signal while it is emitting a steady red signal for a directionof travel through an intersection;b. A motor vehicle entering or in the intersection in that direction of travel; andc. The license plate and number of the motor vehicle; and

3. Is not designed to take recorded images of the faces of occupants ofa motor vehicle.MUNIC IP AL COURT : The Municipal Court of the City.OPERATOR: Any person who operates or drives a motor vehicle and has the same meaning as"driver".OWNER: The owner(s) of a motor vehicle as shown on the motor vehicle registration records of theMissouri Department of Revenue or the analogous department or agency of another State or country.RECORDED IMAGE : An image digitally recorded by an automated photo traffic enforcement system.S YS TEM LOCATION : An intersection at which an automated photo traffic enforcement system hasbeen installed.TRAFF IC CONTROL SIGNAL : A device that displays alternating red, yellow and green

base/title00079.htmlcha... 9/14/2011


42/60

CTS - Document Page 50f8

lights intended to direct traffic when to stop at or proceed through an intersection.B. Violation Of Public Safety At Intersections. Except as otherwise provided inthis Section315.095, a person commits the infraction of violation of public safety at an intersection when amotor vehicle of which that person is an owner is present in an intersection while the trafficcontrol signal for the intersection is emitting a steady red signal for the direction of travel ororientation of that vehicle in or through the intersection, unless the motor vehicle is inthe processof making a lawful right turn. Provided, however, that an infraction shall be excused uponsubmission of a sworn statement that the presence of the motor vehicle in the intersection wasjustified because:

1. The traffic control signal was not in proper position and sufficiently legible to anordinarily observant person;2. The operator of the motor vehicle was acting incompliance with the lawful order ordirection of a Police Officer;3. The operator of the motor vehicle violated the instruction of the traffic control signalin order to yield the right-of-way to an immediately approaching authorized emergencyvehicle;4. The motor vehicle was being operated as part of a funeral procession pursuant toSection 194.503, RSMo.;5. The motor vehicle was being operated as an authorized emergency vehicle as definedand incompliance with Section 304.022, RSMo.;6. The motor vehicle was a stolen vehicle and being operated by a person other than theowner without the effective consent of the owner (but this shall not be a justification for suchan operator) and the theft was timely reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency;7. The license plate andlor tags depicted in the recorded image(s) were stolen and beingdisplayed on a motor vehicle other t han the motor vehicle for which they were issued (but thisshall not be a justification for the operator of the motor vehicle) and the theft was timelyreported to the appropriate law enforcement agency;8. Ownership of the motor vehicle had in fact been transferred prior to the violation(provided State records substantiate this statement);9. The motor vehicle was present in the intersection because it was inoperable.

Liability hereunder is based on ownership, without regard to whether the owner was operating themotor vehicle at the time ofthe violation, except that, as provided in Section 304.120.4, RSMo., noliability shall be imposed on the owner of a motor vehicle when the vehicle is being permissively usedby a lessee if the owner furnishes the name, address and operator's license number of the personrenting or leasing the motor vehicle at the time the violation occurred to the City within ten (10) daysfrom the time of receipt of written request for such information,C. Automated Photo Traffic Enforcement System Authorized. Anautomated photo trafficenforcement system is hereby authorized to be installed and operated within the City for the

http://codes.sullivanpublications.comlhazelwood-slpllpext.dllfInfobase/title00079 .htmlcha... 9114/2011
http://codes.sullivanpublications.comlhazelwood-slpllpext.dllfinfobase/title00079http://codes.sullivanpublications.comlhazelwood-slpllpext.dllfinfobase/title00079


43/60

CTS - Document Page 6 of8

purpose of detecting violations of public safety at intersections. Specific system locations shall bedetermined from time to time by the City Traffic Engineer. Recorded images from a singlecamera unit shall constitute sufficient basis for citation if alone or incombination they clearlyshow that the traffic control signal for an intersection is emitting a steady red signal for thedirection of travel or orientation of a motor vehicle in or through the intersection, the motorvehicle present in the intersection and the license plate and license number of the motor vehicle.Recorded images may also be used as evidence of other violations to the extent permitted byapplicable law.D. Enforcemen t Procedures .

1. Except as otherwise provided herein, upon review of recorded image( s) showing aninfraction under this Section, a Police Officer of the City Police Department shall complete acitation in a form approved by the Municipal Judge (which form may be completedelectronically or online) and the City shall cause the completed citation to be mailed to theowner at its last known address by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid, withinthirty (30) days after the date the recorded image(s) were taken.a. Based upon the information obtained from the recorded image, the PoliceOfficer may obtain any additional information about the owner, which is necessary tocomplete or mail the citation, from the records of the Missouri Department of Revenue orany other legal means; or, if the motor vehicle is registered in another State or country,from the motor vehicle registration records of the department or agency of the other Stateor country analogous to the Missouri Department of Revenue or any other legal means.b. If there is more than one (1) owner ofthe motor vehicle, a citation may becompleted and addressed to any or all of them and such owner shall be jointly andseverally liable hereunder.c. The citation shall direct the owner to respond within ten (10) days of the date ofmailing of the citation either by paying the fme specified in this Section 315.095 at the

appropriate time and place in the City or by providing a sufficient sworn statement ofapplicability of one (1) of the justifications for presence of the motor vehicle in theintersection set forth in this Section 315.095.d. A copy of the recorded image(s) upon which the citation is based shall be sentto the owner with the citation.e. The citation shall include a request that the name, address and operator's licensenumber of any person renting or leasing the motor vehicle at the time the violationoccurred be furnished to the City within ten (10) days of receipt of the request.

2. Any sworn statement provided by an owner shall be examined by the City ProsecutingAttorney. If the City Prosecuting Attorney determines that a statement is sufficient, then thecitation shall be withdrawn and a letter to that effect shall be sent to the owner by the City. Ifthe City Prosecuting Attorney determines that a statement is insufficient, including, but notlimited to, a determination based upon a comparison of the statement to the recorded image( s),then a letter shall be sent to the owner (any or all of them) at its last known address by FirstClass United States Mail, postage prepaid, by the City indicating that the statement wasinsufficient and the fine specified in this Section 315.095 must be paid at the appropriate timeand place in the City within ten (10) days of the date of the letter. If the statement timelyprovides the name, address and operator's license number of any person renting or leasing the

http://codes.sullivanpublications.comlhazelwood-slp/lpext.dlllInfobase/title00079.htmlcha. .. 9/14/2011
http://codes.sullivanpublications.comlhazelwood-slp/lpext.dlllInfobase/title00079.htmlcha.http://codes.sullivanpublications.comlhazelwood-slp/lpext.dlllInfobase/title00079.htmlcha.


44/60

CTS - Document Page 70f8

motor vehicle at the time the violation occurred, then the citation shall be withdrawn, a letter tothat effect shall be sent to the owner by the City and a new citation shall be issued to theidentified person together with a copy of the identifying statement, which person shall be liablehereunder as if an owner.3. In lieu of completing a citation, the Police Department may send a warning notice tothe owner if the system location was established within one (1) week of the violation or if the

reviewing officer determines that the recorded images are inconclusive or that it is more likelythan not that a justification applies to the violation.E. Fine. Notwithstanding any other provision of the City Code of Ordinances, the fine for theinfraction of violation of public safety at an intersection shall be one hundred dollars ($100.00)and under no circumstances maya person be imprisoned for such an infraction.F. Warning

hazelwood lawsuit red-light cameras

Documents