From: stephanie.haikyan@gmail.com   
      
   On Thursday, October 3, 1996 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-7, Oregon National Motorists   
   Ass'n. wrote:   
   > With photo radar usually in place where limits are lowest, accidents   
   > are rarest, and most motorists safely exceed posted limits, it pays to   
   > know the foolproof and legal way to beat a photo radar ticket.   
   > Before mentioning the loophole left deliberately by the legislature,   
   > be aware that no state accepts regular mail as adequate for "service   
   > of process," that is, notice that you are being subjected to the   
   > authority of a court. A peace officer or certified mail is required.   
   > It is notable that officials in Pasedena, CA admitted after a failed   
   > photo radar pilot program, that the 20% of people who ignored their   
   > tickets-by-mail were free and unpunished, and that if word got out of   
   > this fact, the whole program would fall apart. The fact is: there is   
   > no law that requires you to read your mail.   
   > Now, for the loophole:   
   > Fearing many trials contesting the identity of the person in the   
   > ohoto, the legislature decided to allow, (following ORS 811.123,   
   > Sections 1 to 3, chapter 579, Oregon Laws, 1995.) Sec. 2 (3)(a):   
   > "If a registered owner of a vehicle responds to a citation   
   > issued [by photo radar] by submitting a certificate of innocence   
   > within 30 days from the mailing of the citation swearing or affirming   
   > that the owner was not the driver of the vehicle and a photocopy of   
   > the owner's driver's license, the citation shall be dismissed."   
   > SHALL be dismissed. Not "may" be, or "will be if a review shows the   
   > claim to be credible," but SHALL be.   
   > For those who fear that they might be mistaken when they claim   
   > innocence, consider how the subsection continues:   
   > "A person may not be prosecuted for perjury or false swearing   
   > in connection with submission of a certificate of innocence."   
   > Here is an example that all are welcome to copy:   
   > *************************************************************   
   > CERTIFICATE OF INNOCENCE   
   > To: [court listed on the mailing, address]   
   > Re:[case/citation number on mailing]   
   > I hereby swear or affirm that I am innocent of the infraction accused   
   > in the above-noted citation dated (copy enclosed,) as I was not the   
   > driver of the vehicle. I am enclosing a photocopy of my driver's   
   > license number ODL__________.   
   > I certify that this certificate of innocence was submitted within 30   
   > days from the mailing of the citation.   
   > Sworn or affirmed,   
   > _____________________________   
   > [your name]   
   > *************************************************************   
   > It's that simple. Now, if they were posting the units where accidents   
   > were occuring most frequently, or if they were neighborhood side   
   > streets (as the legislature required) instead of "collector" through   
   > streets, we should assume that those who are ticketed deserve it,   
   > right? But not with the current cynical system.   
   > The legislature also requires that an indication of the actual speed   
   > of the vehicle is displayed within 150 feet of the location of the   
   > photo radar unit. Do you think that this requirement (intended to   
   > encourage voluntary compliance) is satisfied by a display in the back   
   > window that clicks on only a fraction of a second before a vehicle   
   > passes, and which is barely visible peripherally, even to one who   
   > knows he is passing a unit (at the limit,) and who wishes to see the   
   > speed.   
   > Did you know that U.S. Public Technologies, Inc. receives between $16   
   > and $30 per citation, as well as lease fees for providing the units?   
   > This isn't about public safety, it is about money.   
   > Make it unprofitable, and it will go away. Our law enforcement   
   > officers deserve a more respectable mission than tax fund-raising.   
   > --   
   > Ben Langlotz   
   > National Motorists Association, Oregon Chapter Coordinator   
   > langlotz(at)teleport.com   
   > http://www.motorists.com   
   but 811.123 was repealed in 2003? is it still okay to cite?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)