What’s the rationale of the SC legislature to ban these camera speed monitoring devices?
Asking as it seems that they are helping public safety. And opposing them seems that the legislature is not.
Not 100% sure of the exact reason of why they did what they did so I looked it up. Turns out it may be as simple as "because someone asked for permission instead of forgiveness."
🙂 They can still get you for toll booth violations or in states of emergency on an e-ticket thing, however.
Basically, if a person needs to be charged for a violation, it needs to follow state law or state Constitution. Not just make up local laws to allow civil e-tickets for speeding, according to a 2006 opinion of the then-SC Attorney General. The ironic thing about that is, the state's AG in 2006 just happened to be the CURRENT GOVERNOR of SC, Henry McMaster. Thus, I doubt if any changes come soon to that deal. Although, if the state legislature changes their minds one day after McMaster is gone...
In part, in an opinion written by Sr. Asst. AG Charles Richardson, on behalf of the AG office, to a letter to the Beaufort county Sheriff asking about E-ticketing back then. It's seemingly the basis for how the current law is constructed. It seemed that the state didn't want municipalities authorizing e-ticket camera use and turning traffic tickets from misdemeanors into civil violations without issuing points off licenses and such but still collecting money, in violation of state Constitution as there were already state laws on the books covering speeding tickets/penalties:
Therefore, political subdivisions are free to adopt an ordinance as long as such ordinance is not inconsistent with or repugnant to general laws of the State.
As to your question of whether it would be legal for a law enforcement agency to send citations to a registered owner by certified mail, no State law authorizes the use of such process. I am enclosing copies of two prior opinions dated March 19, 1996 and October 3 1,2002 in which the practice of using photo-radar technology to catch speeders was reviewed. The 1996 opinion comments that the General Assembly is the appropriate authority to authorize the use of a photo radar system.
A full pdf copy of that actual letter if anyone GAF:
http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2009/sc-cameraag.pdf
I went and looked up the current statute piece as to what it actually says about pic ticks in SC. Here it is, para E., Section 56-5-70. (discussion point bolded by me)
(E) Citations for violating a local ordinance or the traffic laws relating to speeding or disregarding traffic control devices based in whole or in part on photographic evidence, whether gathered in conjunction with radar speed detection devices and whether the camera or other electronic device capturing the photographic evidence was attended or unattended at the time it captured the photographic evidence, only may be issued for violations that occur while relief from regulations pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 390.23 has been granted due to an emergency. A person who receives a citation for violating traffic laws relating to speeding or disregarding traffic control devices based in whole or in part on photographic evidence must be served in person with notice of the violation within one hour of the occurrence of the violation unless a collision occurred and fault cannot be determined immediately or the party who caused the collision is not immediately accessible due to medical treatment. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to toll collection enforcement.
which coincides with Section 56-7-20, about ticketing the operator (I bolded discussion point)
Each ticket shall have a unique identifying number. Each printed copy must be labeled at the bottom with the purpose of the copy. A handwritten traffic ticket must consist of four copies, one of which must be blue and must be given to the vehicle operator who is the alleged traffic violator; one of which must be yellow and must be dispatched to the Department of Motor Vehicles for its records and for audit purposes; one of which must be white and must be dispatched to the police agency of which the arresting officer is a part; and one of which must be green and must be retained by the trial officer for his records. An electronic traffic ticket must consist of at least one printed copy that must be given to the vehicle operator who is the alleged traffic violator and as many as three additional printed copies if needed to communicate with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the police agency, and the trial officer.
With the law in current form, you can't authorize or issue e-tickets in a SC town without state lawmaker's passing a law to authorize it. Plus, nobody liked the idea of this camera company who was running the mail ticket deal was doing a LEO's job, without actually being a LEO. They stood to make profits off of auto-generating tickets that didn't all go to the town's coffers. Slippery slope sort of stuff. The fuzzy part was that iTraffic was run by the same guy who had a similar company that was bankrupted just a few years earlier. You're ticketing the license plate, not the violator who is driving because you can't positively ID the perpetrator from the back. I guess it'd be like being responsible for your kid's actions...when he's 32. Even in murder cases, if you can't ID who did the crime, you can't make a valid arrest. Boiled down- If catching speeders and slowing traffic/safety is the goal, get your azz out there and park along the highway and do the job.
I believe there was a guy out in Phoenix, Arizona several years ago that was zipping around speeding getting his picture taken with a gorilla mask. I think they eventually got him, but he confounded them many times and made them spend considerable resources just to positively ID him via stakeouts. They probably spent more to find him than he had in tickets.
