Court cancels automated speeding fines
A man from Rochester, New York, got three automated speeding fines canceled in court, and his case may pave the way for other drivers wishing to challenge their penalties.
How the violation recording system worked
In the fall of 2024, local authorities placed a white, unmarked SUV equipped with a speed measurement camera in a construction zone. The system automatically recorded and fined any vehicle exceeding the speed limit. Over 25 days, more than 26,000 fines were issued on Interstate I-490, three of which were received by Kent Cramer.
Court’s position and criticism of the traffic court
Although the vast majority of people paid the fines, Cramer decided to challenge them in court. According to News10NBC, he lost in the municipal traffic court but filed an appeal, which was heard in the county court earlier this month. Judge Doug Randall canceled Cramer’s fines and sharply criticized the actions of the traffic court.
Judge Randall stated that during the hearing in the traffic court, “barely any evidence” was presented before determining liability, and noted that the court clerk began arguing with Cramer. He called this “clearly inappropriate” and “the most outrageous case.” Worse, he claims the traffic court “improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the defendant.”
Issues with evidence and deadlines
During the first hearing, Cramer stated that insufficient evidence was provided that construction or repair work was being carried out at the time of the violation. During the appeal, Judge Randall noted that the prosecutor did not provide any evidence of workers being present at the site at the time of the alleged violation. Additionally, no evidence was provided that the notice of liability was sent to Cramer within 14 business days, as required by local laws.
Consequences for other drivers
Of the drivers who received fines, 239 people appealed to the municipal traffic court, and all but 40 lost. However, thanks to Judge Randall’s new ruling, those who lost in court but wish to file an appeal now have until May 8 to do so.
This ruling highlights the importance of adhering to procedural norms even in cases involving automated fines. It may set a precedent for reviewing similar cases where automated violation recording systems are not accompanied by properly substantiated evidence, calling into question the legitimacy of many fines issued without proper verification of circumstances.