SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
74–392 PS
2001
AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT—RED LIGHT CAMERAS
(107–40)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JULY 31, 2001
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
STEPHEN HORN, California
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JACK QUINN, New York
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
SUE W. KELLY, New York
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
C.L. (BUTCH) OTTER, Idaho
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
MAX SANDLIN, Texas
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma
JIM MATHESON, Utah
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
RICK LARSEN, Washington
(ii)
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Chairman
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JACK QUINN, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
SUE W. KELLY, New York
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisana
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana
DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
C.L. (BUTCH) OTTER, Idaho
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota, VICE-CHAIR
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(ex officio)
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California
FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
MAX SANDLIN, Texas
BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JIM MATHESON, Utah
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
RICK LARSEN, Washington
WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
JERROLD NADLER, New York
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JAMES P.McGOVERN, Massachusetts
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(ex officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Barr, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from Georgia
Harper, Jim, Editor, Privacilla.Org
Hedgecock, Roger, Radio Talk Show Host, KOGO Radio, San Diego, California
Hurley, Marshall, Attorney at Law, Greensboro, North Carolina
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Livesay, Chief G. Wayne, Howard County Police Department, Howard County, Md, accompanied by Lt. Glenn Hansen
Stone, Judith Lee, President, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Armey, Hon. Dick, of Texas
Barr, Hon. Bob, of Georgia
Coble, Hon. Howard, of North Carolina
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois
Filner, Hon. Bob, of California
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., of West Virginia
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Harper, Jim
Hedgecock, Roger
Hurley, Marshall
Livesay, Chief G. Wayne
Stone, Judith Lee
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Coble, Hon. Howard, of North Carolina, City of High Point, North Carolina, Fred P. Baggett, City Attorney, letter, August 2, 2001
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Inc., Thomas W. Brahms, Executive Director (contained in the subcommittee file):
A History of the Yellow and All-Red Intervals for Traffic Signals, report, by Kimberly A. Eccles and Hugh W. McGee, July 2001
Improving Traffic Signal Operations, report
Determining Vehicle Signal Change and Clearance Intervals, report, August 1994
Automated Enforcement in Transportation, report
AUTOMATED ENFORCEMENT-RED LIGHT CAMERAS
Tuesday, July 31, 2001
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Thomas E. Petri [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. PETRI. The subcommittee will come to order.
Today's hearing will focus on automated enforcement, specifically cameras at intersections that photograph cars as they illegally pass through a red light.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me begin by saying that I think we all agree with safety being the first principle of our discussion today. With some 900 Americans killed in accidents associated with red light running, I am confident that we are all interested in punishing those who illegally run a red light.
That said, the question today is whether or not red light cameras are a valuable safety tool or an attractive revenue stream for the cities that use them or both. Maybe the answer is both.
Additionally, issues such as privacy and legal implications are intertwined with red light cameras. My hope is that today's hearing will review all of these concerns.
Red light cameras have been around for some 40 years. They were first used in Europe and are now found in 30 American cities. Nineteen States already use or are planning to install red light cameras. Another 11 States specifically prohibit or do not have a law allowing their use.
Washington, D.C., being one of the most recent cities to use red light cameras, has certainly raised awareness here on Capitol Hill. Having the cameras in use within our Nation's capital has made many lawmakers who do not have cameras in their home State take an interest in this issue.
Some, like myself, have found a new appreciation of the science, if not the art, that goes into timing traffic signals, in particular, how interdependent a series of lights are and what proper timing can accomplish in moving cars and providing a safe environment for motorists. Many do not appreciate that simply changing the timing on a single light can disrupt traffic within the larger systems and make that specific intersection unsafe.
So much of the debate around red light cameras is focused on the timing of the light, how much time is enough to give motorists time to safely clear the intersection. Also, are cities putting cameras at intersections to capture a new stream of revenue, or making engineering improvements to enhance safety? The overall question is whether enforcement is a sound first effort or a means of last resort.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panelists and yield to the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee, our colleague from Pennsylvania, Bob Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearings on the use of cameras at intersections as a means of enforcing our traffic laws. Today's witnesses will address the privacy implications of red light cameras, as well as the use of cameras as a safety and law enforcement tool. I look forward to their testimony.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 1999 fatal accident reporting system, 23 percent of fatal crashes and 58 percent of all crashes occur at intersections. In 1999, 9,560 people died in intersection highway crashes. These disturbing highway safety statistics cry out for solutions.
One way to attack the red light running problem is through the use of technology. According to the Federal Highway Administration, automated red light enforcement using cameras has proven to be effective in reducing the incidence of red light running and the number of red light running crashes.
I note from the witness list, Mr. Chairman, that FHWA will not be testifying at these hearings, so let me say a few conclusions from their September, 1999 report. Based on a review of five electronic enforcement programs in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Polk County, Florida and Howard County, Maryland, the report concludes that programs implemented in other areas should show at least a 20 percent reduction and as much as a 60 percent reduction in traffic violations. Crashes in Howard County and Polk County were reduced when crash data from the year before were compared to the year after red light cameras were introduced.
However, more data needs to be collected over a longer period to validate the safety impacts of these programs. A separate report on San Francisco's project showed a 9 percent reduction in injury collisions caused by red light violators one year after implementation of the program.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In New York City, rear end crashes held steady or increased slightly, but total intersection crashes were down. What is clear is that intersections must be designed with safety in mind.
I am troubled, however, Mr. Chairman, by the charges in Majority Leader Armey's report, the Red Light Running Crisis: Is it Intentional?, that some communities may have timed their traffic signals to increase revenues from traffic fines to the detriment of highway safety. If even remotely true, these are concerns that need to be addressed.
I am interested in hearing testimony on the effects of yellow light timing, whether lengthening yellow lights will reduce red light running, as the Majority Leader's report suggests, whether lengthening yellow lights will encourage motorists to try to beat the red light and actually create a more hazardous condition, and whether lengthening yellow lights will increase traffic congestion.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would like to recognize the work of one of our most able staff members, Mark Kreskowski. Mark will be leaving the Subcommittee staff to head off to Columbia Law School in the fall. This is his last day with us, and before he departs, I just want to thank him publicly for the great job he has done. Good luck at Columbia, Mark, we will miss you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Opening statements, if any, by the Chairman of the Full Committee, Mr. Young of Alaska, and the Ranking Democrat of the Committee, Mr. Jim Oberstar of Minnesota, will be made a part of the record.
Any other opening statements? Mr. Coble.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief, and I thank you. I thank you and the Ranking Member for conducting this hearing.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As you know, Mr. Chairman, North Carolina is one of the States where red light cameras are currently being used at intersections. Not unlike many of my colleagues, especially those of us who have had the opportunity to serve on this Committee, I am very concerned about the increased number of fatalities on our Nation's roads and highways and what we can do as a Committee to improve safety and save lives. As you have pointed out, there is a very high premium on safety.
At the same time, however, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that improved safety should come at any cost. I sit on the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Chairman, as you know. And there we consistently struggle with issues relating to the rule of law. And one of the features that concerns me most about the use of red light cameras is the presumption of guilt that accompanies these citations.
This appears to me, Mr. Chairman, to turn our system of justice on its head, where presumption of innocence, not presumption of guilt, has been the cornerstone of our legal system since the days of our founding fathers.
And returning once again, Mr. Chairman, to the issue of safety, I am concerned that the tremendous revenue raising potential of these cameras will provide a great temptation for municipalities to ultimately reduce the yellow light times in an effort to nail more violators. Needless to say, in this situation, if it does in fact occur, the safety of our citizens would be greatly jeopardized, along with the sanctity of their wallets.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Ranking Member and look forward to the testimony that will be forthcoming.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Filner.
Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have a full statement for the record. We will hear on our second panel what I could only consider some horrifying testimony from Mr. Roger Hitchcock, and I will be there to introduce him. But I hope the Committee will listen very closely to his testimony. We're all interested in safety, but the horror story that Mr. Hitchcock will tell about San Diego, I think, will give us great pause.
And I would hope, Mr. Chairman, also, as I was reading his testimony and listening to others, it would seem to me that the manufacturers of the technology might be called at some point to this Subcommittee, because not only the technology ought to be looked at, but the contract terms with various cities. Because there seems to be a, what shall I say, an incentive to give out tickets. In San Diego, at least, as we will hear, they get a percentage of the ticket.
And also the use of the information that they gather, the contractor has full access, apparently, to DMV lists. We ought to be able to talk to them about how they use these lists, are they for sale, etc. So I hope at some point that we might get the folks who are involved in the technology and manufacture and distribution of these systems before us.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Ranking Member Borski for holding this very important hearing.
Let me just say, you can never satisfy government's appetite for money or land. If we gave every government agency twice what they are getting, they would be happy for only a short time and then they would be coming back to us crying about a shortfall.
This in my opinion is not about safety, it is about—it is primarily about money, ways for government to get more money from the citizens of this country. And already, the government at all levels is taking about 40 percent of the average person's income, and costing another 10 percent in regulatory costs that are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I noticed in the paper that the District of Columbia, just that one jurisdiction expects to raise about $160 million a year, and so I think primarily that is what it is about. Also, there are people concerned about the invasions of privacy. The computers have made our lives better in many, many ways, but they also have taken away a great deal of our privacy. So maybe to some people, this is a very small thing, but I can see those who do have those concerns.
But as I said before, I think this is primarily about money, and using safety as a cover, just in an effort to try to take more money from the citizens of this country. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Are there any other opening statements?
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
I too want to thank you for this opportunity to hear from the distinguished Congressman, Mr. Barr, as well as the Majority Leader, Mr. Armey and others on this critically important issue. Let me say, this is a matter that both by way of occupational and professional background, as well as representing the people that it represents, is an issue that I feel very strongly about. I would like to commend Congressman Barr, Congressman Armey and others for their outspokenness on what I consider to be a very real and omnipresent threat to our personal privacy.
In my judgment, red light cameras are not in any way used or being used or really purported to be used, other than through the most dramatic stretch of the imagination, to make our streets safer. They are being used to generate revenue for cities and camera contractors at the expense of citizens' civil liberties.
As a result, drivers are put in the dubious and clearly unconstitutional position of being guilty until proven innocent. These cameras violate our right to privacy and our constitutional right to face our accuser. I strongly believe that these personal freedoms and the goals of making our streets safer are not mutually exclusive. The former do not have to be sacrificed for the sake of the latter.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working with you as well as Mr. Barr, Mr. Armey and others on this issue, and hope that we have a chance after hearing from the distinguished gentlemen what in my case may be rhetorical questions, but at least in the case of the Committee, other questions and comments with what I consider to be a very, very critical area, not in the area of safety, but in the area of civil liberties. I think that is something we are all sworn to uphold in the most pure manner.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Without objection, Ms. Norton, the delegate from the District of Columbia, who is not a member of the Subcommittee, will sit with the Subcommittee with the rights of a member today.
Any other opening statements? If not, we go to our first witness, our distinguished colleague from the State of Georgia, Mr. Barr.
TESTIMONY OF HON. BOB BARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA
Mr. BARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your allowing me and the other members of this distinguished Subcommittee to allow me to testify briefly here today and answer whatever questions you might have within the sphere of my interest in and background relating to the important constitutional issues that you are about to jump into.
First, Mr. Chairman, let me commend you for holding this hearing today. The technical aspects of government surveillance are reaching the point, given the capability of government to gather, manipulate, store and use information, is progressing behind the scenes in ways that the vast majority of American citizens have no earthly idea.
What we see is the tip of the iceberg. For example, as the subject of this hearing today, the issue of cameras at intersections, is visible, and thank goodness that it is, if it weren't, if there had not been some stories written about this recently and some studies regarding abuses in the area of using these cameras had not come to light, we probably would not even be here today.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I think this is a very, very important issue, an issue, Mr. Chairman, that will really be a focal point for much constitutional consideration throughout this coming century. Probably the most important currency of the 21st century, in a way, is information. It is much more valuable than money, it is much more valuable than physical assets, even. That company, that government that is first to be able to gather more information than another entity, and to be able to manipulate that in one more way than another entity, and to be able to store one more megabyte than another entity, is that company or that country or that government that moves to the forefront of power.
And trying to get a handle on exactly how we as a society, given the constitutional constraints within which we have always required our government to operate, deal with these emerging questions of technology, and whether or not technology or the foundational concerns of our bill of rights shall continue to be the loadstar, the guiding star for our society, is a question for which there are no more fundamental questions. It is that important, what you and hopefully what other committees, including, as the gentleman from North Carolina said, the Judiciary Committee, on which I also have the honor of serving, will be looking at in the years ahead.
I do not think that there is anything good about the use of surveillance cameras. They fly in the face of virtually ever constitutional guarantee that we have. They take away, as the gentleman from North Carolina indicated, they take away your ability to effectively confront an accuser. They take away the ability to question, they take away, because of the seeming invincibility and truthful imprimatur that is given to technology in today's society, they take away your ability to do anything other than basically subjugate yourself at the rule of this technology law that we are developing and walk away paying a fine, and be happy that you get out of there without being sent to jail.
There was a recent decision in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, it was a five-four decision, but thankfully it was five on the side of the right to privacy, a recent decision written by Justice Scalia that began, I think, and begins to develop a Supreme Court dialogue on this important issue. While this case was not specifically related to surveillance cameras, rather, it was related to another technological area, that is thermal imaging devices that can pick up heat radiation from the exterior of a building, the opinion, written by Justice Scalia, starts to ask some of the questions in a legal setting that this Committee and this Subcommittee is beginning to ask from a legislative setting. Hopefully we will develop and we will see more interest on the part of legislators, more interest on the part of lawyers, and on the part of judges, to begin grappling with these foundational questions in the coming months and years.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Technology has the very, very real potential, indeed likelihood, Mr. Chairman, of eviscerating the Fourth Amendment and other amendments that are portions of our Bill of Rights as well. It used to be, Mr. Chairman, that a police officer would have to establish and would be required under the constitution to establish some articulable suspicion and articulable reason that could be articulated to an independent magistrate before gathering information from a person, from his or her clothing, from a car, from inside the glove box of a car, from inside the package of a card.
But nowadays, with technology being what it is, and with government showing no hesitancy whatsoever to push that technology to the furthest limits, establishing that is no longer necessary. We also know, Mr. Chairman, that governments do not always do what they say. There are some jurisdictions in which these surveillance cameras have been set up and the assurances at the outset have been, all these cameras are going to do is photograph a person's or a vehicle's license plate.
Well, then we find out as we get down the road and as we start to see some of these cases develop that not only does the camera photograph the license plate, it photographs the car, it photographs the person in the car and it photographs the interior of the car, giving rise to the gathering of all that sort of information for which heretofore there was an expectation of privacy, and which was covered by the Fourth Amendment which would have required going in before a neutral magistrate and establishing that cause, or at least having a police officer on the corner.
As Mr. Johnson pointed out, I think it was he, but a number of members have also, there is another very, very troubling aspect to these surveillance cameras that we are seeing, and that is providing part of the revenue, a hefty portion of the revenue that is gathered as a result of citations or tickets given out as a result of the use of this technology at intersections and other locations along the public roadways to the companies that develop and/or install the equipment. This smacks, Mr. Chairman, of the old speed traps that were outlawed as unconstitutional several decades ago, allowing and providing a financial incentive for an entity, whether that entity is a governmental entity or private entity, to go out and catch people and get them convicted so that the coffers for either the outside entity or the government are increased thereby should not be something that any government would want to do.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The glee with which some jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia, seem to be embracing this notion, raises some fundamental questions about whether or not people who are pushing the use of this technology for this purpose and in these ways have any regard whatsoever for the Constitution. Of course, they always say this is intended to save lives, this is intended for public safety, and that is very important. But we should never forget that simply making the trains run on time, as Mussolini was proud to say, apparently, making the job of law enforcement easier and more efficient should never be the end of the argument.
Trying to protect our constitutional guarantees in this country, which are unique, balance that against the need for effective and efficient law enforcement, is an issue that we have to grapple with. Mr. Chairman, if we don't tackle this, as you are beginning to very, very quickly, we will have effectively forsaken the ability to do so in the future. The technology and the precedents that are being set already will have advanced so far it will be literally impossible to put the horses back in the barn.
We've seen that in a number of areas, such as the government snooping on the internet in Project Carnivore, and now we're seeing it in both the Federal Government and local and State governments, using modern technology to eviscerate and otherwise avoid the requirements of the Fourth Amendment which have served our Nation so well for well over 200 years.
I'd be happy to answer questions, Mr. Chairman, and would appreciate if I could submit my written statement in its entirety for the record.
Mr. PETRI. Your written statement will be made a part of the record, without objection, and as well, a statement by the majority leader, Mr. Richard Armey, who wished to be here this morning, but could not, since he can't be two places at once. Other demands were placed on his time.
Are there questions of the witness? Mr. Isakson.
Mr. ISAKSON. Bob, welcome to the Committee. I am no match, and I know it, for your constitutional knowledge, and I learn from it all the time.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have a question for you, just really a comment. I've read all the problems with the use of cameras at red lights and in traffic and for their enforcement and I understand the danger of constant monitoring of everything a citizen does, and we must be ever vigilant.
We have a situation in my district where those cameras are used in another way that facilitates traffic, specifically tollways, where the people with the automatic technologically read disk that's on their windshield can go at normal speed through the tollway, but they film the license plate and it's synchronized with the sticker, so if somebody's running through there that hasn't paid the annual fee, they then catch them the same way I assume you catch them with the red light camera.
My question is this. When we regulate this use, so as to not have a constitutional abuse, are we better off to do it by establishing what is and is not legal, versus outlawing a technology?
Mr. BARR. I think you're absolutely correct. Just as we should not allow technology to get so far out in front of Fourth Amendment and other constitutional concerns, it becomes the tail wagging the dog, I don't think that we should have a knee jerk reaction against any use of technology. In the example that you've cited, there are a number of factors, I think, that make it very different from what we're talking about, or at least what I was talking about in terms of general surveillance cameras or use of specialized technology, such as that that some law enforcement officials want to start using at airports to x-ray people as they go through or which was already attempted in the case I cited regarding thermal imaging.
In the case that you cited, I think some of the factors that make a difference are, it's very limited, very specific. The person essentially has consented to the use of the technology by virtue of the fact that they have bought into the ease of having that sticker or that bar code or whatever it is on the car so that they don't have to stop each time at the toll booth and pay the fine.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think though that even in that situation, whatever governmental authority it is, and the courts certainly need to be involved in this, need to constantly make sure that the technology is being utilized in the very specific and very limited way that it was intended, and not as we've seen in some other jurisdictions where, as I mentioned, the jurisdiction will say, well, we set up these cameras, and they will only photograph the license plate, and then we find out that something quite different is being done.
It requires not only very strict limitations being placed on the use of the technology when the program is set up, but constant monitoring to make sure that it is not being abused and broadened during the course of its use.
Mr. ISAKSON. One further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Yes.
Mr. ISAKSON. On that point, you raise an excellent point, you are correct that in the case of the disk going through a toll booth, the person who is obeying the law has consented to be filmed, because they bought the disk. Just like when I go to the ATM machine and use my ATM card, I guess I'm affirmatively consenting that that little camera that's filming me is okay.
But in both those cases, for the violator who runs the toll booth, they didn't consent, and in the case of the ATM machine, if somebody attempts to rob somebody, the use of that film could be used to collect them. My point is this. I concur completely with what you're saying from the standpoint of the government going too far and being too pervasive in the private lives of individuals.
My only point I want to make is, as we go through this, and those of you that are attorneys and know this far better than I, I don't want us to throw the baby out with the bathwater with regard to uses that are reasonable and not invasive, and are in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the people. That was kind of my point.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I hope we'll legislate use of technology rather than prohibit use in general of technology.
Mr. BARR. And the gentleman is, despite his professed lack of legal background, has really done an outstanding job of identifying the balancing act that we ought to be engaged in. And I think part of that also, part of that balancing act ought to be also, are there less intrusive means of accomplishing the goal.
For example, the District of Columbia is saying, aren't these machines wonderful, they can not stop, but they can cite many more thousands of people. And some jurisdictions that have been trying this for a while are saying, isn't it delightful, isn't it wonderful, isn't it laudable, because we're catching these people and we're seeing the number of accidents at intersections go down, for example.
Well, I think that before any jurisdiction, and I think this is the only responsible way to do it, before any jurisdiction rushes in and just throws this technology out because, in part at least, some of these companies are saying, hey, it's not going to cost you anything, it's a freebie, just give us a cut, 40 or 45 percent of the money down the road, that's a great incentive for some jurisdictions, that those jurisdictions, and we insofar as Federal jurisdiction is concerned, ought to say, fine, we want to stop accidents at intersections, or we want to stop accidents from occurring on Federal roadways.
But are there other, less intrusive, less, and to use your term, which is a better one, invasive ways of accomplishing it? There are police officers that can be stationed at particular points. Maybe it might cost a little bit more, but this is part of a very, very important balancing act that my colleague has indicated.
Mr. ISAKSON. Thank you very much.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Are there other questions? Ms. Norton.
Ms. NORTON. Well, the gentleman mentioned the District of Columbia, and so I feel compelled to respond. I take seriously the issue that is raised here. I was assistant legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union as a young woman. And I do regard any invasion of privacy as anathema to American values, and if it goes deep enough, to our Constitution.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Therefore, I think this is a serious issue, and I think Mr. Barr is correct in asking the question, is there a less intrusive way to accomplish the goal. And if he has one, I'd like to hear it. Because stationing a police officer on every corner is an impossible and impractical way, so I haven't heard it yet.
But I do think that it is important to note that when one gets a driver's license, one has to, one takes on the responsibility of operating that vehicle in conformance with law.
With respect to the District of Columbia, and the allegation that any jurisdiction, but especially the jurisdiction in a big city, would install traffic lights just to make money, I believe that that deserves a response, and I have sought statistics. Because if that were the case, then I would have to oppose this notion.
I do want to note in passing that we inquired of the ACLU, which is quick to stand up for invasions of privacy, where are you on this one. And they noted that indeed, because the film taken is of the license plate, and must be of the license plate, I agree with Mr. Barr, if in fact there's an abuse here, then we're talking about something else. But let's talk about what we're talking about. If in fact you're doing what, you're using the equipment properly and you're taking a picture only of the license plate, then it seems to me that you do not have an invasion of privacy, you're not taking pictures of the person or the inside of his car.
Even so, I do think it is appropriate to say, is there a compelling need for the use here. And I want the member to know that the police, before they use these cameras at all in the District of Columbia, did a survey to back up their own safety data. It asked people who live in this city where there's a lot of crime, as there is in every large city, it wasn't looking for an answer on this particular issue, it simply was putting out its survey to say, please tell us your primary safety issues in the District of Columbia. They did not name murder, they did not name robbery, and they did not name drugs. They said their number one issue was aggressive driving and running red lights.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
One of the reasons that the police in the District of Columbia were concerned to use something other than our police we need in our neighborhoods to deal with the crime and the drugs and the guns. One of the reasons that our police were looking for something to do is because of fatalities, mostly women and children who were being struck and killed by cars.
In the first year that this technology was used, the fatalities were reduced from 16 to 2. Last year the fatalities were reduced from two to none. The police department in the District of Columbia has 10 times more requests than they can handle for a light near a school or near an intersection. AAA reports that in this entire region, 77 percent of the people in the Mid-Atlantic region approve of these cameras.
I don't know if there's a better way. I do believe that whenever you take a picture of somebody, you ought to see if there's a better way. You ought to see if there's a better way when you go in a department store to do something other than put a camera on all of us, by the way. Because everybody who walks in a department store now has a camera looking at you everywhere you go. Is there a better way? I hope so. I haven't heard any hearings on that. I'd like to.
So I just want to indicate that this is a difficult issue. I don't believe that Mr. Barr is raising a frivolous issue or that his testimony is anything but an important notion for us to consider. I do think that there are very important public safety issues to be measured against the usual constitutional matter that is raised, and I don't see how, in areas where there's a compelling need, one can say that one would never use this technology.
I thank you, sir.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON. Congressman Barr, like all of us in this room, you took an oath and have taken it regularly to uphold the Constitution when you became a member of the Congress. Would you agree that this ''technology,'' that's the politest way I can think of to describe this mechanism that we're talking about, has clear, almost overwhelming evidence that there are clear implications for and probable violation of numerous provisions of the Fourth Amendment and numerous provisions of the due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporate those provisions of the Fourth Amendment? Would you agree that's an accurate statement of our legal framework, constitutional framework?
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BARR. It is.
Mr. JOHNSON. Would you also agree that, among other things, the ability to face your accuser, search and seizure implications, are clearly at issue here and in fact, I think at least in my judgement, I think a lot of constitutional scholars, and I give you deference in that respect, are overwhelming issues that seem to me to wind up on one side in an overwhelming manner?
Mr. BARR. Well, the gentleman is correct there, also. If you see this, I know the gentleman has done and I have done, looked at some of the recent cases that are starting to work their way up through our judicial systems. It's very disturbing, because you see some judges refusing to entertain literally any defenses to the technological evidence that's being introduced.
Mr. JOHNSON. I come from a law firm, I suppose similar to yours, where we defend cases and actually have done special prosecution in cases so that the practical aspects of trying these cases are relevant, too. Would you also agree that reliability in terms of one's ability to, as either a prosecutor or defense counsel, to deal in a courtroom sense, with this kind of testimony, is clouded at best and probably a deterrent to effective use in the courtroom?
Mr. BARR. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. JOHNSON. Am I correct that there at least, and maybe we'll find out through later testimony, that there is actually evidence that private corporations derive some portion of their income based on the number of successful prosecutions and revenues received from the use of these mechanisms?
Mr. BARR. This is correct. There are companies, subsidiary or a division of Lockheed Martin, which I believe is the company under contract with the District of Columbia to install the surveillance cameras in D.C., gets a very large percentage of the money, the revenues that are generated. There, I think, is also an Australian company that has been doing this out West, perhaps in Arizona and perhaps in California as well, that is deriving a substantial percentage of the revenues that are generated by the camera shots of cars that are then introduced as evidence if they result in a conviction and/or a fine being paid.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. JOHNSON. So at least in some cases, there is apparently a relationship between the revenues derived and the success or failure of prosecutions under the use of these devices?
Mr. BARR. A very clear and apparently deliberate link. And we're also starting to see some evidence, I think, from out West, perhaps in San Diego, where the technology was being manipulated and inaccurate information was being given to the court by the company that was in charge of the machinery itself.
Mr. JOHNSON. I guess I could conclude then with a combination statement and question. First of all, I appreciate and commend the witness in bringing this to our attention. I am absolutely stunned and outraged that this society of ours that purports to have a commitment to constitutional guarantees, would actually countenance, at any level, a bounty system where we're going to reward private sector, or for that matter public sector, private sector manufacturers for their success or failure in deriving prosecutions from what are clearly unconstitutional, or at least arguably unconstitutional, mechanisms.
I find that absolutely outrageous. Anybody in this room, whether you're going to come before us later on and tell us what a great device this is, or whether you're in opposition to it, to countenance that kind of a bounty hunting system has a clearly different outlook on our Constitution and our system than I do.
And Mr. Barr, I just want to, at least on my own behalf, and I'm sure some of the members of this Committee and the American public, commend you on bringing this to our attention. This is absolutely an outrage.
Mr. BARR. The gentleman gives me too much credit, but I appreciate the honor of being here to represent some views and answer questions of the Committee. Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Other questions of this witness?
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Yes, Mr. Brown.
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry I was late, and maybe this might have been addressed, but has there been any evidence that the information that's been captured on those cameras as motorists pass through has been used for any other invasion of privacy?
Mr. BARR. There are some cases that are starting to work their way through. I'm not aware of any in the District of Columbia yet. That isn't to say there are, I'm just not aware of any. But in some other jurisdictions, yes, there is evidence that that is starting to happen.
There's one jurisdiction that I've read about, I believe it was actually down in my home State of Georgia, in which the promise was made initially that only license plates would be captured on film, and then later on it was discovered that far more than license plates were in fact being captured. That's why in response to the question from Mr. Isakson, we discussed the need to not only look very carefully at the parameters that were set up when this sort of technology is approved and put in place, but also it requires constant monitoring to make sure that those parameters and those limitations are not being exceeded or abused.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Otter.
Mr. OTTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Barr.
Following up on what my colleague, freshman class colleague, Mr. Johnson pursued, isn't it true that we have a bounty system in many of the agencies of government? Isn't there a bounty system in the IRS? Isn't there a bounty system in the EPA? The National Marine Fisheries?
Mr. BARR. I certainly think so. There is, and where you have a jurisdiction relying on those funds that are generated, those revenues that are generated, it provides an inherent constitutional conflict of interest, and that's why we had a series of cases back a few decades ago looking at so-called speed traps in different parts of the country. And they were stricken down for the very reason that you have that inherent constitutional conflict between enforcement of the law and respect for constitutional rights versus the need to generate revenue.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. OTTER. Well, I just mention that, because in a court case in Idaho last June, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine Fishers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, that whole myriad of operatives, agents in the Federal Government in Idaho, admitted that 85, 90 percent of their lawsuits resulted from neighbors telling on neighbors or family telling on family. I was kind of surprised when Mr. Johnson brought up the fact that perhaps we've gone to a bounty system here. We've had a bounty system alive and well in our Federal Government for some time.
Mr. BARR. Well, the gentleman is absolutely correct, and that's why I again commend the Chairman for initiating this hearing, which hopefully will be followed by others by this Committee, and we plan some hearings in Judiciary Committee as well. Because at virtually every way and from every angle at which you look at this problem, more constitutional concerns are evident as you peel away each level of the onion, each skin of the onion.
Mr. OTTER. I think we're coming onto something here not even George Orwell dreamed would happen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Other questions?
Thank you, Mr. Barr, and we look forward to working with you in this important area as we move forward.
Mr. BARR. Likewise, Mr. Chairman, thank you. And thank you to the members of the Committee.
Mr. PETRI. The second panel consists of Mr. Roger Hedgecock, who is a radio talk show host of KOGO Radio in San Diego; Ms. Judith Stone, President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety; Mr. Jim Harper, Editor, Privacilla.org; Chief G. Wayne Livesay, accompanied by Lt. Glenn Hansen, Howard County Police Department; and Mr. Marshall Hurley, who's an attorney in Greensboro, North Carolina.
And we have several members of Congress who would like to introduce the witnesses, Duke Cunningham and Bob Filner. Duke, would you like to start?
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, from his days as a San Diego elected political leader, to his 14 years at a local radio show, Roger Hedgecock has reached out to speak and influence millions of people. Each year, he brings a couple of groups back here called Hold Their Feet To The Fire, for citizen politicians, and after visiting Congress, they go up to the White House.
But I also know that in one case, there's nothing too small. There was a group of bureaucrats in San Diego that were trying to stop kids from washing cars to earn money. Roger got the citizens behind that, and those bureaucrats were put down, the kids were able to wash their cars. So he'll take on anything, as you see.
I think you're going to find he's one of the most well informed radio talk show hosts that you've ever had before you. His knowledge, he doesn't do things lightly. In this particular case, Mr. Filner and myself and Mr. Hunter sat down last night, and I am not an expert on this issue, but some of the information that I heard, for example, when you have a private company accessing DMV records, even Social Security numbers for marketing, if you have a city that reduces yellow lights so that they can increase revenue, and there's evidence of that, that kind of information, I hope the panel will listen to Mr. Hedgecock, because he is understood and I think respected by most all of San Diegans for his activist role.
He's had Mr. Filner and I up a tree many times. He's not afraid to go after anybody. But he's honest and he's fair and he'll listen, but he's real knowledgeable. With that, I'd like to introduce Roger Hedgecock.
Mr. PETRI. Okay, Mr. Filner.
Mr. FILNER. I want to join my colleague, Mr. Cunningham, in introducing Roger Hedgecock. He knows our business very well, he's a former mayor of San Diego and member of our county board of supervisors. He moved to the talk show business, where he makes a lot more money and is a lot more influential than a politician.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But as Congressman Cunningham said, what he does on the air is to bring people into the political process and get people involved. I don't often agree with Mr. Hedgecock, but I will be a strong proponent of his bringing people into the political process. When you hear what he has to say today, I think you will be as shocked as I was on hearing this story. I certainly associate myself with the remarks that he will make today.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Hedgecock, if you could suspend for just one minute, a member of our panel, Mr. Coble, would like to introduce an other distinguished member of the panel.
Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. Marshall Hurley is no stranger to Capitol Hill. He served as a legislative director and an administrative assistant here. He is now a practitioner of law in Greensboro, North Carolina, my district, Mr. Chairman. He holds degrees from the University of North Carolina and a law degree from the Wake Forest University School of Law.
Mr. Hurley comes to us today, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Borski, with more than a casual interest in this subject. He's initiated a lawsuit back home, perhaps he'll tell us about that.
It's good to have you with us, Marshall, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Coble.
Mr. Hedgecock.
TESTIMONY OF ROGER HEDGECOCK, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, KOGO RADIO, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; JUDITH LEE STONE, PRESIDENT, ADVOCATES FOR HIGHWAY AND AUTO SAFETY; JIM HARPER, EDITOR, PRIVACILLA.ORG; CHIEF G. WAYNE LIVESAY, HOWARD COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT, HOWARD COUNTY, MD, ACCOMPANIED BY LT. GLENN HANSEN; AND MARSHALL HURLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW, GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HEDGECOCK. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I thank Members Cunningham and Filner for their very generous introductions. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today.
I want to summarize, you have my statement in more detail, including exhibits in your backup, and I'd like to have that made part of the record, obviously, and summarize it as well.
Mr. PETRI. Without objection, and we look forward to your summary.
Mr. HEDGECOCK. We in San Diego have been fighting these red light cameras for a variety of reasons. And for reasons that have been discovered most recently, we were more right than we knew to start this fight.
I want to make three basic points today, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. In San Diego, this red light enforcement program is about money, not safety. In San Diego, even if there are safety corollaries involved, it is a huge invasion of privacy which I want to detail to you and which I think will shock you.
Finally, we give up major liberties if this is the way the program is to be administered elsewhere. We come to you, we think today, with the kind of program you would not want in your community.
Let's start with the first point, money not safety. As practiced in San Diego, there is a contract with Lockheed Martin IMS. They paid for all the machinery, they set it up, they run it. They control 19 intersections with their computers.
The City of San Diego, when this program started, did a survey of the 10 most dangerous intersections in San Diego in preparation for this program. Lockheed Martin did not choose a single one of those intersections to place a camera. They placed a camera, as it turned out later, at intersections in which they were most easily able to trap motorists through shortened yellow lights and even moving of the sensors pads, which happened on three of these intersections, in order to get the maximum number of people ticketed.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe the reasons are pretty clear. Lockheed, under the contract, is entitled to a commission, a percentage of the $271 fine, the highest in the Nation, Mr. Chairman. This has all come about, not because I did anything, but because people who listen to the radio show started to fight back against these tickets. They demanded their day in court and in some cases, were prepared by their background and training to make a credible challenge to the technology involved.
Mr. Chris Allhusen, for example, at the intersection of Grand Avenue and East Mission Bay Drive in the Pacific Beach community in the City of San Diego, was turning left and was photographed and cited. And by the way, the photograph unfortunately takes not just the license plate, but the individual driving, the entire inside of the car and for that matter, things surrounding the car. And by the way, of the thousands of photographs that have been taken over the last couple of years in San Diego, not one shows a collision underway, not one.
At this intersection, which by the way had not had a red light running caused collision in seven years prior to this incident, Mr. Allhusen was ticketed. He was an engineer, and he started going over the intersection controls, finding that the yellow light was a normal, I say normal because it confirmed to the specifications of CalTrans and the City of San Diego, and for that matter, the Federal Government, in that it had about a second of yellow light for every 10 miles an hour of speed limit.
So in this area, at 45 miles an hour, most of the other yellow lights were 4.5 seconds, 4.7 seconds, in that area, except the one, the left turn where the camera was. It was 3 seconds.
Now, you have, as the engineers will tell you, a moment of decision to make as a motorist when you approach an intersection. The yellow goes on, under our vehicle code, you're supposed to clear that intersection safely, and you may enter it when it's yellow when you feel you can do that. That is a legal entry into the intersection. If you feel it is unsafe, then you should stop and allow that to clear.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I noticed in D.C., by the way, walking over here, that you have reds all the way around for a second, for a heartbeat, before you go to the green, which is a good idea.
In this intersection, Mr. Allhusen found that the company and/or the city had manipulated the intersection so that the yellow light was in fact shorter, trapping motorists against their expectation in that intersection. Over 2,000 citations a month were issued at that one intersection of the 19, at $271 per, with the contractor getting $70, or half of the fine, whichever was smaller, according to the terms of the contract.
When this was pointed out to the city, the city increased the yellow light to 4.7 seconds at this intersection. The citations dropped from over 2,000 per month to just about 200 a month, the real number of people attempting to actually go through the red light, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Chairman, this is the worst part. This picture that is taken, under the contract with Lockheed and San Diego, the contractor, Lockheed, has the power and ability to access the Department of Motor Vehicles computer with their computer in order, under the contract, to match the license plate to the driver and send out the citation.
Unfortunately, they're also accessing the entire DMV record of that driver, including the Social Security number. I would say to you, Mr. Chairman, this is a huge and unwarranted invasion of privacy, and an unwarranted delegation to a private corporation of that which under California law certainly is supposed to be kept in government hands and not available to private citizens.
And Mr. Chairman, just briefly, this part of it leads me to believe that at least this Committee ought to be looking at this MUTCD, the Millennium UTCD, where you have the situation where they have backed off these yellow light interval standards, and that shouldn't happen.
But I think that most are looking at the broader picture. Because of the way this has been administered in San Diego, I believe you now have a clear warning of where this kind of technology will lead you, down a path where I don't think any of us as American citizens, regardless of race, creed, color or partisan affiliation, want to go. And that is to a Big Brother, I'm sorry, it's cliche to say, but an Orwellian place to be where you are constantly under surveillance.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If we're against red light running, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure we're against spousal abuse, I'm sure we're against a whole host of crimes that we would want to catch more people doing with cameras in the appropriate locations. This, Mr. Chairman, is not only a slippery slope, we're sliding down fast.
I appreciate the time.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Ms. Stone.
Ms. STONE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I'm Judith Lee Stone, President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety. I appreciate being here today.
Advocates' board of directors adopts a program each year that includes public policy initiatives in Congress, the Executive Branch and in State legislatures. Positions we take are based upon hard data and inform us about the possibilities to improve highway and auto safety, should the regulation or legislation be adopted.
We added red light cameras in the past few years as the need to address the epidemic of red light running grew, the effectiveness of cameras became well documented and their use became more widespread. Specifically, we advocate laws that authorize cities and counties throughout a State to use cameras to supplement ongoing police enforcement aimed at curtailing red light running.
The problem with red light running is rampant in the United States, and it is growing. Every year an estimated 260,000 crashes are caused by red light running, and more than 750 of these crashes are fatal. Nationally, fatal motor vehicle crashes at traffic signals increased 18 percent between 1992 and 1998, compared to a 6 percent increase in all other types of fatal crashes.
Running red lights and other traffic controls is the most frequent type of urban crash, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Their research shows that motorists are more likely to be injured in crashes involving red light running than in other types of crashes. Occupant injuries occurred in 45 percent of the red light running crashes compared to 30 percent for other crash types.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On average, at one local intersection, a motorist ran a red light every 12 minutes. During peak travel times, it increased to every five minutes. Clearly, red light running is a serious public health crisis, and too often results in death, injury and destruction of families. Fortunately, we have a simple, relatively inexpensive and effective way to augment law enforcement's efforts to combat red light running, the use of photo enforcement technology.
Red light cameras are not complicated. There's a sensor in the roadway that detects when a motorist runs a red light, the sensor triggers a camera to take a picture of the vehicle. The photograph is typically reviewed by a law enforcement official and the violator receives a citation in the mail.
Cameras are also cost effective, each costing approximately $50,000, and accompanying sensors are approximately $5,000. These costs are minimal when considering that just one red light running crash with serious injuries costs society an average of $32,000, and according to the Federal Highway Administration, the annual cost to the public of red light running crashes exceeds $7 billion.
There's a significant body of evidence from this country and others that proves photo enforcement technology works extremely well. A few examples include a violation rate reduction of 68 percent in San Francisco and a 92 percent drop in violations in Los Angeles. After one year of camera enforcement, Charlotte, North Carolina, experienced a more than 70 percent cut in red light running violations, and in Fairfax, Virginia, a 44 percent decrease.
In the most extensive study on red light camera programs by IIHS, it was determined that in Oxnard, California, front into side crashes at intersections with traffic signals fell 32 percent. And front into side crashes involving injuries were reduced by 68 percent.
Furthermore, crashes throughout Oxnard declined even though only 11 of the city's 125 intersections with traffic signals had cameras. Similar city-wide results have been found in other communities.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This outcome demonstrates the strong deterrent value of red light camera systems and their ability to change driver behavior. Internationally, photo enforcement has been used extensively for years in many countries, including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Results are similarly impressive.
Strong public support for the use of red light cameras has been demonstrated time and time again. The levels of support are growing. I have brought a list of major public opinion surveys from the last seven years. There's a chart over there, including two conducted by Lou Harris for my own organization and several taken in cities and towns where cameras are used. It's important to note that in addition to consistently high levels of approval over time, support for photo enforcement often increases after the enforcement program has been in place for some time, indicating public acceptance and even demand for the technology.
In a 1998 survey, 68 percent of the American public favored State laws allowing use of cameras to enforce red light running laws. One year later, this support increased to 74 percent. And an April 2001 survey of residents in cities without red light cameras showed that 76 percent of those polled were favorable toward camera use. In cities where red light cameras are in use, 86 percent of drivers polled favored the cameras.
Advocates has worked in the recent past with middle school and high school students in several cities in pursuit of State highway safety legislation, and red light camera bills are among the issues for which these student lobbyists have advocated. Young people, especially in cities, are highly supportive of red light cameras, because they are most often pedestrians and potentially the victims of red light running, whether it be walking to school, a bus stop, a local grocery store or after school activities or jobs.
Upon introduction to the issue of reducing red light running through the use of photo enforcement technology, these young adults immediately understood that it was a good idea for them, their families and friends, and they lobbied in State legislatures. People are really listening to their message.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The most compelling case for red light cameras is made, however, not by me, or others in any of our coalitions representing public safety and law enforcement interests, but by people who have been victimized by red light running. We work closely with survivor advocates throughout the country to pass laws, because their stories about how motor vehicle crashes have negatively affected their lives bring into clear perspective the necessity for action. They are highly motivated to prevent similar tragedies from happening to other families.
When Ann Sweet, from Warsaw, Indiana, talks to legislators or to a television network about the loss of her beautiful daughter, Shawnee, and I brought a picture today of Shawnee, I thought you might like to look at that, and she lost Shawnee to a red light runner, her vivid but very educational message that Indiana needs to allow red light cameras throughout the State is much more persuasive than mine or anyone else. Ann flew in from Indiana today just to attend this hearing. She's in the audience right there.
And Barbara Blaustein, who is also in the audience, from Maryland, who was a pedestrian crossing University Boulevard on her way to the Wheaton Metro, was struck by a red light runner and was injured. This crash took place in 1997, and her diagnosis is paraplegia. She is still in active physical therapy. In fact, right after today's hearing, she'll be going up to Johns Hopkins for another physical therapy session.
The American public understands immediately what these two remarkably strong women are talking about. They are highly supportive and they want policy makers to do something about it. And somehow, Ann's and Barbara's tragedies have a way of focusing the issue on the real reason we strive for improved highway and auto safety. After all, it could have been my daughter or your son or your spouse whose life was needlessly snuffed out or who sustained debilitating and costly injuries.
Mr. Chairman, we do not always have such an incredibly clear road map to solving a major public health problem as we do with this balanced combination of human and technological approaches. I seriously doubt anyone in this hearing room would ever question or oppose proven technology that would help eliminate near misses or mid-air collisions by airplanes. Yet we have such technology working for us at intersections, where more than 750 people are killed every year, the equivalent of four major airline crashes.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Opposition to red light camera systems seems like a double standard to me. We know red light cameras work, they are cost effective and the American public is both ready and anxious to have us act on its behalf to keep families safe as they travel through intersections every day of their lives.
Thank you.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Harper.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, since the witnesses seem to be running through the red lights that we have, I wonder if you'd remind them, or we'll take a picture of them.
[Laughter.]
Mr. PETRI. Congressman Filner, we have cameras around the ceiling here that I think are probably taking care of that.
Mr. HARPER. Congressman Petri, Congressman Borski, members of the Subcommittee and Congresswoman Norton, it's a pleasure to appear here today to discuss the privacy implications of red light cameras with you. I'm Jim Harper, editor of Privacilla.org, a web-based think tank that's devoted exclusively to privacy. I'm also an adjunct fellow with the Progress and Freedom Foundation, which I think does top-notch work on a variety of telecommunications and high tech issues, including privacy.
The Privacilla website attempts to capture privacy as a public policy issue from top to bottom. With nearly 200 pages of material, I think the site is still woefully inadequate to cover this very complex public policy issue. It's also, I'll admit, a woefully unattractive site. I do the coding for it myself, and if you look at the site, you'll see clearly that I'm a lawyer and not a computer guy.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Privacilla takes a free-market, pro-technology approach to privacy policy. There certainly are other views, and you should consider them all. Please also be aware that Privacilla is a project of my lobbying and consulting firm, PolicyCounsel.com. My firm doesn't represent anyone specifically on privacy, but always consider my potential for bias as you would with any privacy advocate.
Increasingly as Americans travel the streets and highways, they see cameras bristling from stop lights and street lights. Many people are bristling back. They find these cameras offensive, insulting and an invasion of their privacy. It's incumbent on Congress and policy makers at the State and local levels to examine whether red light cameras are being used fairly and appropriately or whether they are better regarded as an intrusion into our private lives and routines.
Red light cameras are only the first installation of the Big Brother infrastructure. There's very much more to come, and very soon, too. Optical character recognition, for example, may already allow red light cameras to read license plates and scan for specific cars. Networked cameras will be able to track cars as they travel through a city and on the highways. Database technology will make it possible to record the movements of cars and make a permanent record of them if they've been captured on camera.
Certainly these technologies can be used for good, improving safety and reducing crime. For this reason, they are quickly making their way into our Nation's public safety and law enforcement arsenal.
These benefits do not dispose of the issues, though. Technology will soon give governments many capabilities of Orwell's Big Brother.
Our elected officials and public servants make enormous sacrifices for little reward and even smaller thanks. The people in government are honorable, dedicated and well meaning. At the same time, the government sector represents more important threats to privacy than individuals and businesses in the private sector. Orwell wrote about Big Brother as a warning against the power of governments. Protecting privacy in the commercial world is often difficult. Protecting privacy from government is usually impossible.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In recognition of this, the Framers of the Constitution included the protections of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. In my written testimony, I've described how the instinct of the American people, that traffic cameras offend privacy, is correct if cameras are used to monitor those not suspected of crime.
As soon as red light cameras are used for anything other than snapping suspected law-breakers, and soon they will be, these cameras should be shown a red light themselves. We're a free country, and we're a free people who reject the idea of being monitored by government.
I believe that people have an expectation, a reasonable one, as innocents, that governments will not compile investigative information about them. Surveillance technology should be used to monitor only people reasonably suspected of crime. Law enforcement should be required to dispose of surveillance data that is not related to a pending investigation.
Congress should protect privacy and reassure the public, with a law articulating appropriate and inappropriate uses of red light camera data.
Mr. Chairman, I have to confess one thing at this point. After several days working on my testimony, I sat bolt upright in bed last night, recognizing that I actually don't own a car. I do hope that this makes my testimony more dispassionate and doesn't disqualify me from testifying today.
Red light cameras are one of the first in what will be a long succession of technologies that raise important issues like privacy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Borski, for having this hearing. Through your leadership, privacy from government surveillance will be recognized as an issue that deserves the full attention of the country and protective action by Congress.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you, Mr. Harper.
Chief Livesay.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chief LIVESAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Wayne Livesay, I'm Chief of Police for Howard County, Maryland. Howard County, as some of you know, is located directly between Baltimore City and Washington, D.C. To my left is Lt. Glenn Hansen, who's the Administrator for our red light camera program.
I want to take you through some Power Point, I think that will be easier for all of us. Please bear with me, I'll try to adhere by the time rules.
As you've heard today, the red light collisions are the most injury causing collision type in existence. The leading cause of urban crashes and frequent violations are constantly brought to our attention through our citizens demanding we do something about people running red lights.
The picture you see here is really what propelled us to start this movement. This crash occurred in 1993 in Howard County. It left a mother dead and left her child in a vegetable state. We had started looking at some alternatives for red light running at that time. But I truly think this was really the impetus that got us going.
The traditional enforcement methods, we've tried them all before we resorted to the cameras, we tried to use police officers at intersections. We found this almost impossible. If you notice, the intersections seldom have shoulders any more to help control the traffic to get it through very quickly. So the officer ends up running the red light in most cases trying to catch the violator on the other side.
We also tried to use helicopters. We made an agreement and did a pilot project with the State Highway Administration where they actually put lights on top of the red lights that would indicate to the aviation unit when the light had turned red. The observer in the helicopter would radio the violations to a stop team of police officers down the street. It was, as you can imagine, just not cost effective. So we abandoned that very quickly.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The other thing that we had difficulty with, you've heard that mentioned a couple times today, we simply do not have the resources to put officers at every intersection. That's not practical. There are many things to do, but that should not diminish the problems that red light running is causing all agencies and the citizens.
We very much believe in what we call the three E approach: engineering, enforcement and education. Our first priority is to make engineering changes. If that can be done, then that lessens the need for cameras or anything else, if we can provide safe intersections through our department of public works. But that's not always the case.
Education, we've had education programs for the last six or seven years, before we went to the technology, trying to impress upon our citizens the need to stop for red lights and asking for feedback from them. And I can tell you today, every survey we did with the citizens in Howard County demanded us to do something to curtail red light running. It was a big, big problem.
The alternatives that we researched during some of our talks and discussions and pilot programs, the Federal Highway Administration funded some research pilot projects, the ones I just mentioned about aviation. We used team enforcement, that means using officers at different intersections. We teamed up with different entities, trying to make impacts on engineering and so forth. As I mentioned, we did the public awareness campaign, and we looked at successful programs from across the country. I can assure you, there were very few that we considered successful.
So we went to the legislature of Maryland. What we tried to achieve through the legislature and what we eventually achieved was enabling legislation allowing us to start testing red light cameras at major intersections, or at selected intersections. We determined there was a need for the State law, and the reason is this, you've heard this today also, the normal traffic stops means you stop a violator and issue the citation. You have to identify the violator. We needed legislation to allow us to cite the owner of the vehicle, much like a parking ticket. So that's the legislation we sought.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The rear photography, and you're going to see that in just a second, we do not photograph the inside of the car, we do not photograph a person in a car, we photograph the rear of the car, there are two pictures taken simultaneously, which I'll show you. There are no points when you get a red light camera citation, it does not go to your insurance company, it's prohibited in Maryland to impact your insurance. And it's a $75 civil citation, much like a parking citation.
Let me skip along, because I'm going to run out of time. One important part I do want to mention, the police operate our center. It is not controlled by vendors. We approve every citation that goes out. A police person has to sign off on every citation. If there's a problem with the citation, it does not go. The vendor has no control whatsoever on the citations that leave our facility.
This is a copy of our automated enforcement center. We have 14 police agencies in Maryland joining us in the center. It's probably the largest one in the country as far as we can determine. The vendors work with us. But I'll highlight it again, we run the program. We get final say-so on everything, including the intersections. The vendor does not, the police department does.
We base our sites for the red light cameras on collision data, on citation data, where we're having the most violations, on complaint data, where we're getting complaints from our citizens, and the violation studies. They include all this obviously in the accidents that are occurring at a particular intersection.
The camera does not stay on. It is not a surveillance camera. The camera activates 1/10th of a second after the light turns red. So as you hit the sensor, what we call the stop bar at the front of the intersection, you get another 1/10th of a second, and then the camera activates. It is not on when it's green, it is not on when it's yellow. It is not a surveillance camera.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We do two photos. The first photo, as you'll see in just a second, is before the stop bar, the second photo as the vehicle continues through the intersection. This would be the first photo, this is an intersection in Howard County. He's tripping the sensor, the camera is activating, it's taking the first shot. As the vehicle continues through, there's a second shot as the vehicle goes through the intersection. I think it's very clear that the red light is there, it's visible and the vehicle is proceeding through the red light.
We have several private companies that work with us in this program. One company, for example, gets the supplies and retrieves the film, another maintains the cameras, another digitizes the violation images, another one previews the incidents, data entry and so on. We have a lot of people working with us. But it is a police-run program. It is not a vendor-run program.
The county police manage the entire process. We review every citation, as I mentioned. We approve each violation notice before it goes out. We are the quality assurance, we are responsible for the court presentation if you do not elect to pay the $75, you're entitled to go to district court and have your case heard before a judge just like any other traffic citation.
If you go to court and you're found guilty, the money goes to the State. It does not go to Howard County. If you prepay the fine, the fine comes back to the general fund in Howard County and is reinvested into the program.
This is what I just said about court and a $75 fine. We have seen an 18 to 44 percent collision reduction at every location where we've installed a red light camera. We currently have 24 cameras in operation in Howard County. Red light running incidents have fallen 66 percent since we started the program. That is tremendous.
Let me just finish with this. There have been some issues raised about the amber lights. We do not set the amber lights. Traffic engineers, who set all amber lights and all red lights in Howard County are responsible for setting the lights at any intersection. The lights are no different at a camera intersection than they are for a non-camera intersection. It doesn't matter. They are set according to ITE, which is the Institute of Transportation Engineers. That's a national standard for setting the timing on lights.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And they're also set by MUTCD, which is the manual of uniform traffic control devices. These are the national standards, as most of you probably know. The traffic engineers do the timing. We have nothing to do with it. And no determination is made to put a camera at an intersection, whether it has a different time than any other else, we simply make the decision based on our data for collisions, incidence of violations and other traffic data that I explained to you just a minute ago.
And I just want to emphasize this, then I'll be finished, there is no correlation where we put cameras and the timing of the lights, none whatsoever.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you.
Mr. Hurley.
Mr. HURLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of this Committee.
Red light cameras combine the worst traits of government arrogance and corporate greed, where the grab-happy hand of the bureaucracy is strengthened by the insatiable appetite for money.
In North Carolina, red light cameras are relatively new, and we're just getting a chance to assess the implications of this radical development in commercialized law enforcement. Most systems involve the use of private contractors who install the cameras at high volume intersections in exchange for a guaranteed percentage of the fines. In one sense, the camera schemes are based on the concept of the government kickback, where a contractor gets a guaranteed cash flow while giving a portion back to the government.
In North Carolina, a company with the delightful Orwellian name of ''Peek Traffic,'' and Mr. Chairman, that's spelled P-E-E-K, Peek Traffic, currently receives $35 of each $50 fine. And that is a nice 70 percent cut.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, this system has now been in place in Guilford County, which is in Congressman Coble's district, for less than six months, and the gouging has begun. Thirteen thousand citations have generated more than $600,000 in fines. At this rate, nearly 30,000 citations and at least $1.5 million in fines will be generated in just one North Carolina county.
The threat to our citizens is not merely financial. In fact, it really pales in comparison with the real problem with these cameras. The fatal flaw in the North Carolina system is the presumption that an owner of a motor vehicle is guilty of an offense if his or her car is photographed by a red light camera. Thereafter, a financial penalty is imposed, and based on an absolute presumption of guilt, there is no judicial review.
This system strikes at the heart of 800 years of Anglo-American jurisprudence. A system that presumes guilt, Mr. Chairman, even on a $50 traffic ticket, violates due process. Senator Daniel Webster said, across the way, once upon a time, ''Ours is a system of law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial.'' In sharp contrast to these principles, red light camera programs condemn vehicle owners behind closed doors and denies them a trial. Frightening throwbacks to the days of the divine right of kings. The techno-tyranny of red light cameras invites continued erosion of individual liberties.
In a civilized society where ordered liberty must prevail, unreasonable government regulations and police powers must be limited by the Constitution. If necessary, these limitations and protections should be enforced by this Congress. Many observers, and you've heard it today, laud the safety record of cameras, and every rational driver wants safe roads. But not every safety benefit befits a free society.
The word safety is not a magical incantation that permits government functionaries to do as they please. In plain southern English, when the government puts its hand in the pocket of a citizen and extracts a monetary fine, the government must follow the rules. With red light cameras, both the government and its contractors have an immense financial stake in the violation of traffic laws. What fuels this flawed system is not a desire for safety, but a hunger for profit at public expense.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Based on history, the inevitable technological advances of the future will only lead to greater erosions of fundamental rights, unless we put safeguards in place now to control the use of invasive equipment.
In conclusion, I borrow the words of one of our most thoughtful founders, Benjamin Frankly, who opined, ''They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' My time has expired, and I thank the Chairman and this distinguished Committee.
Mr. PETRI. I thank you for your testimony.
Are there questions? Mr. Borski.
Mr. BORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank all of our guests, and Chief, let me start with you if I may. That was very impressive testimony that you gave us. One of the things I've often wondered about in our society is law, the basis law of running a red light.
We have full belief that when we're going through an intersection, that the other guy is going to stop if that light's red. If he doesn't, we've got a problem. It seems to me that your system works and works pretty well. I know one of the big concerns we've had here are over so-called bounties. I didn't hear that in your testimony. Do the vendors share in the revenues from this operation for you, and if so, do you see anything wrong with that?
Chief LIVESAY. Yes, they do share in the revenue. And obviously, they're in a business. Our payments to the vendors are not based on volume. We control the volume. So if we do not send out the citations, they're not going to make any money.
Currently, I can tell you, just as an example, a company called EDS, you've heard Lockheed Martin a lot today, they do not work for us, we use a company called EDS. They get $11.08 per citation. And Traffic Packs is another company, they get $9.86. So those are probably the two biggest companies.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But we are currently in negotiations, matter of fact, where we're discussing whether to just set up flat fees, so there is not even a taint of what you refer to as a bounty. We don't use that word, but we're having that discussion now with both of these companies, whether to just set flat fees per month or per quarter or whatever, for the program.
But I'd like to emphasize again, sir, we make all the decisions. We decide where the cameras go, we decide what citations go out and what does not go out. They can't profit on their own. It's not possible. They don't have any control.
Mr. BORSKI. Let me ask about using false cameras. Do you use them, and how successful are they?
Chief LIVESAY. We're still pretty new at that. I mentioned 24 cameras, we have 30 sites. We're starting to move the cameras around a little bit. Our goal is to not have any violations. That's the ultimate goal for all of us. And as our violations start dropping at intersections, we can better use that camera somewhere else. So that's why we would move it to a higher accident location or a higher violation location.
Mr. BORSKI. If the program continues to be successful, you have less accidents and you have less violations. Will the vendors still be interested at that point? Is there a profit still to be made?
Chief LIVESAY. Well, obviously they have to make a profit to stay in business. I don't know. I'm a human being also, and I think I realize, we're never going to omit it completely. I just don't think that's realistic thinking. The best thing we can do is shoot for that goal and hope to reduce the accidents and violations as we're doing.
Will there every come a time when they say, it's not profitable for us any more? Sir, I honestly don't know that.
Mr. BORSKI. Tell me again, I believe you said in your testimony, but tell me again about the public. How have they responded?
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chief LIVESAY. The surveys we've done have been overwhelming from the citizens of Howard County to enforce the red lights. They recently did a survey, and I'll ask my lieutenant to help me, about the cameras themselves. I don't remember how long ago it was.
Lt. HANSEN. Back in 1998, we asked our community several questions about the automated enforcement cameras, whether they thought it was appropriate, and the responses were that they thought it would save lives and they thought it was something they were interested in. We asked them how serious they thought the red light running problem was, and they thought it was very serious.
Mr. BORSKI. Okay. Ms. Stone, let me ask you if I may, first, I want to thank you for your testimony and also for the women that you brought to us. They do send a powerful messages to us.
I was surprised myself to learn that 23 percent of all fatal crashes and 50 percent of all crashes occur at intersections. That's an absolutely staggering statistic. Obviously you support the use of the cameras. Do you have other suggestions, other strategies that can be employed to reduce accidents at intersections?
Ms. STONE. Yes, we do. Actually, I want to make the point that photo enforcement is really just a supplement to ongoing enforcement. This doesn't mean that there will no longer be red light running enforcement on the part of police officers. And so that's one thing to keep in mind.
There are also many things that you can do at intersections. Sometimes very simple, cost effective measures: lane width, creating left turn lanes, making the intersection easier to use, narrowing the lanes if you're trying to cut down on the speed of people approaching the intersection, sometimes that works. A lot of these fixes can be expensive, but there also are some that are not.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We feel that there ought to be a unified approach to trying to cut down on crashes at intersections. Certainly that includes a lot of education and policy changes and enforcement being done together.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Coble.
Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from San Diego referred to the red lights that appear before us. I promise you, when I see that red light illuminate, I will cease and desist. I'll shut up, in other words.
Good to have you all with us. Mr. Hurley, you mentioned in North Carolina that the red light system provides no judicial review. What recourse do citizens then have to challenge these citations?
Mr. HURLEY. Absolutely none. Mr. Coble, if you have a red light camera citation waiting on you when you get home in your mailbox, you are obligated to pay that fine. If you want to appeal it, you are obligated to pay the fine for the privilege of that appeal. Your appeal lies before an employee of the city, whose only authority is to make a recommendation back to the camera company as to your guilt or innocence, and then the camera company decides if you must pay. There is absolutely no appeal.
Mr. COBLE. Let me put this question to Mr. Hurley and to others, after he answers. What do you say, Marshall, to people who say, well, after all, this is a local issue. This is better addressed at the State and local level rather than the Congress. What say ye to that?
Mr. HURLEY. Mr. Coble, the temptation is to agree with that on the surface. But there are some important Federal overlays and Federal considerations. There's use of Federal funds, there's Federal highway and traffic standards. There's how and if we use these types of technologies on Federal lands, on military installations. There are concerns, perhaps more of your other Committee than this Committee, on due process standards, which I have addressed in my prepared remarks.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And also just a big issue for the Congress to help decide what kind of country we live in. Do we live in a police state, where there is presumption of guilt, or do we live in a place that is ruled by the rule of law?
Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. Mr. Editor, you look like you want to weigh in.
Mr. HARPER. Chairman Coble, section five of the Fourteenth Amendment gives Congress authority through appropriate laws to enforce the protections of the Fourth Amendment's, search and seizure provisions. To the extent that red light cameras implicate constitutional privacy, and I think they do, Congress has clear authority under the Constitution to act.
Mr. COBLE. Well, one thing, I don't want anybody leaving this hearing room believing that anyone who is challenging the validity of red lights is opposed to safety. I'm afraid that may end up being the perception, and that clearly is not the case.
My friend from San Diego, what do you say about this?
Mr. HEDGECOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would echo what has been said, that the Fourteenth Amendment gives this Congress the clear responsibility not to allow local governments to do things that are not allowed under the Constitution. We have similar problems to South Carolina, what Mr. Hurley has described, with respect, for instance, to Lockheed Martin in our case in San Diego, actually choosing the cases that will go to prosecution, where the tickets will be sent. We have law enforcement contracted out to a private corporation which is making money based on a percentage of the number of citations issued.
Mr. COBLE. Anybody else want to weigh in? Ms. Stone.
Ms. STONE. I would like to mention, and I would like Chief Livesay to back me up on this, because I have had a tour of the Howard County program. I remember at that time, it was a few years ago, and I believe that this is true for a number of the other programs across the country, that there is an affidavit that can be signed when you receive the ticket that allows you to say that somebody else was driving and that you are not responsible for the ticket. That's simply signed, sent in and the ticket is not issued.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. COBLE. Well, now, apparently, Mr. Hurley, we don't have that flexibility in North Carolina.
Mr. HURLEY. Yes, sir.
Ms. STONE. Am I correct about that, Chief?
Chief LIVESAY. Almost. If you choose to go to court, you appear in court and you can transfer the responsibility to someone else, if you name that person. It transfers over automatically.
Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Chief. And that red light is about to come up, and in view of my promise, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It's a very interesting hearing, a subject that we don't normally encounter in this Subcommittee, and one that does merit some consideration.
But I'm reminded of the 1950s, when radar was first introduced as a traffic speed enforcement device. Time Magazine ran an article entitled, Big Brother Is Driving. There were many of the same fears and objections raised in the 1950s that are being raised now in the new millennium to red light enforcement.
Just think of the stakes. Half of all accidents in the whole country occur at intersections. And red light running results in fatalities. Nine hundred fifty fatalities, 90,000 injuries, $7 billion cost to the economy. Medical costs, lost productivity, property damage. And as we heard from the very compelling testimony from Chief Livesay, in Howard County's experience, traditional traffic enforcement alone that relies exclusively on traffic officers is less effective than the new technology.
For those who have objections to a short yellow light or the manner in which the program is run, contracting it out to private operators, there's a remedy. Fix it with local government. This is not for the Congress to fix.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I say, Judie Stone, and Chief Livesay, your compelling, enlightened testimony stands in refreshing counterpoint to the alarmist incantations we've heard this morning. How can you measure lives of lost loved ones and the pain of families, the pain of injury? And the nonsensical attitude of people who run a red light—I saw the yellow, I've got a right to run through the red. I'm late for something, I've got to get there, damn the red light. That's what's going on in the minds of people.
Yes, this is a free country, but I remind all those who object to these devices, that this is refereed freedom. We all have to have respect for our fellow citizens. It's not me first in America. It's safety first.
Just this morning as I was out cycling, going through an intersection that I frequently cross, watching people come to a rolling stop and then just careen around the corner, it's not a red light, not a traffic light, it's a red stop sign, by damn, stop. That's what it says. And if you get caught violating the law, don't object. You thought you could get away with it. And when you get caught, then you should pay the consequences.
If there's something unfair in the way it's set up, fix the unfairness. But don't stop sensible use of technology to save lives.
When I chaired the Aviation Subcommittee and we held hearings on traffic collision avoidance systems, our colleague from Southern California represented Cerritos, California, and advocated that Congress enact legislation requiring the installation of TCAS on major aircraft and Mode C transponders on general aviation aircraft. There was a hew and cry from the general aviation community, from the airlines, don't make us do this.
Well, then there was another crash, one over Cerritos, that I mentioned. And the Congress enacted it, and made the airlines do it. Somewhere along the line, you do have to impose solutions. And we've saved lives. TCAS and Mode C transponders in the terminal area of airports, save lives. So will these devices.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PETRI. Thank you. Without objection, the opening statement by our colleague, Mr. Rahall, will be made a part of the record.
Other question? Mr. Brown?
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Hedgecock, I was just wondering, in your testimony you said that the frequency of the light was changed. Did anybody have a repeal to go back and try to get a recourse from the tickets that were issued under the shorter span?
Mr. HEDGECOCK. Yes, sir. There has been a class action suit filed in San Diego to represent those motorists who have been cheated, who have in fact been manipulated and whose pockets have been filched by this system.
Mr. BROWN. Lt. Hansen, is there a larger charge for, say, second or third offenses of running a red light?
Lt. HANSEN. No, sir, there's not. It was considered at one point, but we have a very low rate of recidivism, and we've never pursued that.
Mr. BROWN. And in effect, you've seen a tremendous cutback on the number of fatal accidents because of the red light surveillance, or in effect, have you caught any of the accidents on film itself?
Lt. HANSEN. Yes, sir, we have. The State of Maryland, the privacy provision is so strict that we're not allowed to use those images for anything other than the red light camera civil violation purposes, but we have captured those images on film, yes, sir.
Mr. BROWN. In making your determination of which intersections to put the cameras on, was that based on prior records of accidents?
Lt. HANSEN. That is correct. That's the primary purpose, is to reduce those crashes. So we meet quarterly, myself with the traffic engineers from the State and from the county, and we review all the high collision locations. We determine if an engineering change should be made, and if we can't find an engineering fix, then we explore the use of cameras.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BROWN. Thanks for coming.
Lt. HANSEN. Thank you, sir.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Rahall?
Mr. RAHALL. No questions.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Filner.
Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We get two different worlds here of testimony. And I want to see if we can reconcile them at all.
Ms. Stone talked about polls which generate support and evidence of decreased accidents. The stuff I've seen in San Diego, Roger, seemed to indicate the reverse on both counts.
Mr. HEDGECOCK. That's true. Mr. Filner, what we have in our situation is not one single shred of evidence, not one paper, not one case, not one documentation whatsoever of any kind that there has been a life saved, a life saved, in this situation. Moreover, we have documentation, and I'm afraid I'm in this category, and I have been in an accident in an intersection, and unfortunately, that accident was when the truck in front of me slammed on the brakes because of an impending yellow light and caused me to run into the back of the truck.
This kind of increasingly unsafe situation does occur, and has increased the rear-ending collision rate, which was not addressed, in the City of San Diego, and I suspect in other places as well.
I would also point out that we've had a horrible problem of selective enforcement. Our contractor, in fact, did not cite any government vehicles that were caught in the program. And after I discovered that and talked about in on the air, the city manager backpedaled and said, well, we're going to cite everybody. Then they started citing police officers in the course of duty. The police officer's union, the police officer's association, got very upset. And I have in your packet for you an analysis made by the president of the police officer's association that the entire camera situation is illegal. His analysis is appended to my statement.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FILNER. When Mr. Oberstar talks, we all listen. He suggested that this is a local problem, and I was trying to think about that and think about the experience we had in San Diego. One thing that struck me, Mr. Oberstar, and maybe Roger can relate this, the vendor in this case, Lockheed, it's called—
Mr. HEDGECOCK. Lockheed Martin IMS.
Mr. FILNER.—has sold or has contracted to sell their operations. And as I understand it, and Mr. Hedgecock can relate it, the buyer of that, one of their chief areas in business is to sell and market lists. And this technology, because of the way it's run in San Diego, I'm not sure if it's elsewhere, they access, as Mr. Hedgecock related earlier, as to all the DMV files, including Social Security numbers, etc. And they're selling now this information or this ability to get the information to another company.
Do I have that right?
Mr. HEDGECOCK. Yes, sir. In fact, this was AP news last Friday, that the Lockheed Martin Corporation announced its sales of the subsidiary to a company called Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. for $825 million the company estimated it would net after taxes over $500 million in that transaction because of the value of, not only, one presumes, the many, many jurisdictions that are now buying this equipment and contracting with Lockheed, but also because a very key part of the contract in San Diego.
I'm not aware that it's in other jurisdictions. But in our jurisdiction, a key part of this, it's the Lockheed computers that access the DMV, the Department of Motor Vehicles computers, in order to verify whether that license plate is in fact that person and so forth, and then to send out the citation based on the information on home address and so forth that comes up.
Well, there's a lot of other information on that same file as it comes up. Presumably, Lockheed Martin has access to all of it, and has it. This is in contrast to California law which prohibits and individual or corporation or any private entity from accessing DMV files.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. FILNER. Seems to me that's where we need to look at. I had suggested to the Chair earlier that we also have another panel where we have those vendors in here.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield just briefly?
Mr. FILNER. Happy to.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The State of Minnesota has a checkoff box on your auto license renewal that you can check if you do not choose to have your name included in any list distribution or selling by the State of Minnesota. You check that off, you name doesn't go onto any list. So get back to the State of California and fix it.
Mr. FILNER. I understand, but even with the checklist, as I understand the technology, this private company has access to it. And that seems to me something that we ought to at least be cognizant of and aware of.
Mr. BROWN [ASSUMING CHAIR]. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Interestingly, I have I believe examined as thoroughly as I can in this short time the written testimony that's presented to us. I note that in the testimony of Ms. Stone, the Advocates of Highway and Auto Safety, and the testimony of the distinguished representatives of the Howard County Police Department, there is no reference anywhere within the context of your testimony to anything to do with the constitutionality of this, any of the legal aspects of this, anything other than pure get the trains to the station on time.
I find that an incredible, glaring omission on your part and your part, and I find your written testimony questionable from that basis, if no other basis in addition to that.
I also found interesting, Ms. Stone, I guess this is a form of a rhetorical question, that you talk about costs and the cost effectiveness. Perhaps what we should just do is eliminate trials altogether in any kind of cases, then we'd have a tremendous savings to our judicial system. That would a very efficient manner of doing things but I don't think you would advocate that, and I don't think these gentlemen would, either.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You talk about results in your testimony. You don't talk about the results of mistakes that are made. You don't talk about any empirical evidence that would indicate upon what basis you purport that these results are reliable. You talk on page four about other nations that have gone to this system, Singapore, South Africa, those are two great examples of countries that have strong commitment to our bill of rights. And I would suggest that those are at best inapt analogies to our system.
Gentlemen, I guess we have a vote, but that's all right, we've got 15 minutes, Mr. Livesay, is that correct, Mr. Hansen, you talk about, and Mr. Oberstar did as well, technology, reliability. No one questions that people run red lights and commit traffic violations that they ought to be convicted. But are you suggesting, and I ask this with not false naivete, but fortunately, these Orwellian tactics haven't reached the 15th District of Illinois now. So you have to forgive my ignorance.
Are you suggesting that the way you use this system is that you actually send a citation to individuals based on red light photography, rather than sending a citation, calling that person in and then having a trial based on that? You simply send a citation?
Chief LIVESAY. Yes, sir, we do send a citation based on the registered owner of the car.
Mr. JOHNSON. That is incredible to me, an incredible violation of every concept of ordered liberty that I learned when I taught and went to law school and practiced law for 32 years. I just find that unbelievable.
No one questions, as I said, the viability of convicting guilty drivers. But Mr. Oberstar makes the analogy to radar. Radar is very useful. These things are probably very useful. But in conjunction with a trial, in conjunction with eyewitness testimony, radar can be very reliable. If you want to bring an individual in, Mr. Oberstar, and convict an individual for going 55 in a 35 mile an hour zone, then you have the individual officer come in, testify about the calibration of the radar, testify that they were clocked at going 55 in a 35, and you convict them. But you don't do it in absentia.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
You talk about your technology and its juxtaposition with our trial system, and I find that just incredible. Are you also suggesting, Mr. Livesay and Mr. Hansen, that, you said that the results don't depend on volume, the volume results to the vendors don't depend on volume because you set the volume. Now, let me understand this as clearly as I can. I understand that you determine how many citations are sent out. I know the vendors don't determine that. But is their income either directly or indirectly affected by the number of convictions that you obtain as a result of those citations that you send out?
Lt. HANSEN. Not by convictions. It's not connected at all—
Mr. JOHNSON. What's it based on?
Lt. HANSEN. We base on work completed, so the more citations—
Mr. JOHNSON. Here's the question. You do a flat fee, you just pay them for technology, which is find, that's a bid system and so forth, or do you do it where their income, their net income, varies according to the number of convictions that are obtained?
Lt. HANSEN. Neither. We pay some of the services outright, we do a lot of the services ourselves, we manage the entire process. We do out-source parts of it.
So while we control how many citations are issued, because we're there for the entire approval process, when a citation is issued, we pay the vendors for that completed work. It has nothing to do with whether the individual pays the citation, goes to court. They have the opportunity to go to court on these cases, just like they do on speeding cases.
Mr. JOHNSON. Well, maybe you have a different definition of bounty hunting in Maryland than we do in Illinois, but that seems to me to be about as blatant a violation of any kind of decency standards that I can imagine.
Unfortunately now, we have to go vote. But I commend the Chairman, Mr. Petri, the members of the Committee, who I guess in some cases with whom I disagree, on bringing to our attention something that frankly I wasn't even aware existed, and I think represents and incredible threat to our concepts of civil liberties in this country. And I know you're speaking from the standpoint of sincerity and you are as well, Ms. Stone. But you're both, and all three of you are dead wrong.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
I recognize Ms. Norton. Ms. Norton, we've got about nine minutes left before we have to vote.
Ms. NORTON. Well, thank you. I want to say that none of you is dead wrong. And I want to say how much I appreciate your testimony. Because you have given testimony about important issues of surveillance, where indeed, at le