School/park speed zone on Ashby Rd. The school crossing sign in the background has an attached "Photo Enforced" 6' x 9" plate.
RiverCity Examiner is following a St. Ann speed camera case in which the defendant has vowed to fight the charge. On Thursday, August 18, 1pm at the St. Ann City Hall, our subject (the defendant - a Black male) was set to argue his case.
He had been notified of the violation in March. His hearing was set for May. He asked for a continuance in May and in June in order to see if the state legislators would put forth further regulations or restrictions for speed cameras. They did not.
In July the subject asked for another continuance to prepare a defense for trial. The judge, William Buchholz, appeared a bit annoyed with the subject for again asking for a continuance in light of the state's non-action, but he granted a FINAL continuance and set the subject for trial on August 18.
The proceedings at the speed camera court are held in three phases. Phase one is having everyone who wishes to ask for an extension to pay their fine line up and have Judge Buchholz grant a one month extension. There were about 50-60 people in line for this portion on August 18. They were informed that if they have not paid by the next court date, they would have to return and ask for an additional extension. Some defendants return month after month if necessary. If they pay the fine off at anytime between appearances, they don’Äôt have to beg the court's favor again.
Phase two is for those who are making their first appearance and wish to fight the violation. For them, the judge sets a trial date for the following month.
Phase three is for those who were previously set for trial and were there to argue their case. Some had sent attorneys, who were instructed to meet with the prosecutor, Frank Hankin, and discuss their client's position. The attorneys filed into a meeting with the prosecutor one by one and left in the same way, all basically stating that there were no deals being provided. Their clients would just have to pay the fines, but they can take comfort in knowing that there are no points assessed against your license for these violations.
Before trial, the judge explains that even if you were not in the vehicle, if it is registered to you, you are responsible for the fine. Our subject’Äôs position that he will argue is that he has no recollection of being in Ashby Rd. (speed camera location) at any time in recent months or at all for that matter. He explains to us that though he has seen pictures of what looks like a car of the same make and model as his, bearing what looks like a license plate that has the same alpha/numeric sequence as his, without any verification (vehicle identification number -VIN- or public standard of proof) that that is his vehicle, he will ask for a dismissal.
If a speeder is stooped by a traffic officer, the typical procedure is for the officer to check license and proof of insurance. Many times, officers check the VIN to be certain that the registration and vehicle are in order. Our subject feels that unless the cameras can present absolute evidence that the vehicle that he’Äôs seen pictured in grainy photos is his, he should be granted a dismissal of charges.
A few other brave souls opt to face the judge and defend themselves against the prosecutor’Äôs case. The others, who are appearing without council as well, are all White.
Sitting in what is now a nearly empty courtroom, since the masses have filed through with new dates, the defendants are each handed a packet of documents by the prosecutor and told, "Look this over before you are called."
Our subject looks over the documents and notices that first page is a "Certificate of Authentication of Documents" signed by a custodian of records, Mr. Tom Winkler. The document has a space for to be notarized, but is not.
When our subject is called to the bench, he states that the documents that he’Äôs been given aren’Äôt notarized. The prosecutor states that only the document presented as evidence is notarized, not the copy that he receives. The prosecutor then asks the judge if he may copy the notarized copy in evidence and provide that to our subject. The judge allows for that. As they wait for the copy, our subject asks for a continuance so that he may study the evidence that he's just been given moments ago, and prepare to defend himself against it. Appearing more annoyed than ever, the judge grants another continuance saying sarcastically, "I'll give you another continuance so that you can 'prepare to defend yourself against the new evidence.' We will see you here on September 16."
Since then, our subject has told RCE that upon close review of materials, he has a number of points to argue for dismissal, over and above his prior argument. Stay tuned for our October Surprise Edition, in which we will present the results of our subject's fight.
Home
Home