It’s tough to challenge a speed camera in court: It’s you against a camera.
To make matters worse, many lawyers don’t even want to take the case — the fine usually costs much less than an attorney’s time. That means most drivers roll over when faced with speed camera fines.
But an Ohio judged struck down a speed camera ordinance in the Village of Elmwood Place, arguing, in part, that the law violated due process since defendants were not afforded an opportunity to contest the camera’s maintenance or effectiveness in court. Although speed enforcement ordinances and court procedures vary, attorneys said that the Ohio case suggested that speed camera laws can be effectively challenged in court rooms — including in the Washington area.
In his decision, Judge Robert Ruehlman called speed cameras a “scam that motorists can’t win,” writing that the “entire case against the motorist is stacked because the speed monitoring device is calibrated and controlled by Optotraffic,” a private company.
To read this article in its entirety visit the Washington Examiner.