RIDGELAND LITIGATION UPDATE:
As you know, the Strom Law Firm, LLC filed a class action lawsuit demanding justice on behalf of all people who were sent a State of South Carolina Uniform Traffic Ticket by the Town of Ridgeland Police Department for speeding based in part upon photographic evidence taken by camera, and whose mailing address is outside of Jasper County, South Carolina.
In response to our Amended Complaint, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss our case. Despite our best efforts, the Court dismissed our case, ruling in favor of the Defendants. At this time, we are not accepting any new cases challenging the iTraffic system. We sincerely appreciate the calls, comments, and emails of support that we received in support of our position.
The I-95 Public Safety Program
The town of Ridgeland has been in the news lately regarding a new method for ticketing drivers on I-95. In a purported effort to improve public safety and prevent fatalities on I-95, the town initiated the I-95 Public Safety Program.
To that end, the Town contracted with a company known as iTraffic to catch speeding drivers using a recreational vehicle stationed on the interstate which is armed with a video camera and a radar.
The Island Packet reported that an officer monitors the video camera which will take a picture of the speeding driver and the driver’s license tag if the driver is driving 11mph or more over the posted speed limit of 70mph.
The officer then pulls the driver’s license.
If the officer can match the driver’s picture with his or her license and the car tag, the Town’s Chief of Police will send a letter to the driver via regular mail enclosing a SC Uniform Traffic Ticket.
The letter informs the driver that he or she has violated a town ordinance regarding speeding and that he or she must pay a fine. The letter further states that because the driver has violated a town ordinance, the citation will not affect the driver’s record.
The letter does state, however, that if the driver fails to appear in court, the Town of Ridgeland may issue a bench warrant for the driver’s arrest or take action to suspend the driver’s license. Click here to review a copy of the letter issued by the Town of Ridgeland Chief of Police.
The Town of Ridgeland’s jurisdiction is only related to a seven mile stretch of I-95. Most drivers ticketed for speeding are traveling from out of state and simply pay the fine to avoid the hassle of traveling back to South Carolina to attend traffic court. The amount of the fine ranges from $100.00 to $300.00.
The ticketing process has sparked a lot of controversy surrounding its legality, as well as the issue of whether the state benefits from the funds collected or the Town of Ridgeland solely, especially in light of a new state law, S.C. Code §56-5-70(E), which states:
Citations for violating traffic laws relating to speeding or disregarding traffic control devices based solely on photographic evidence may only be issued for violations that occur while relief from regulations pursuant to 49 CFR 390.23 has been granted due to an emergency. A person who receives a citation for violating traffic laws relating to speeding or disregarding traffic control devices based solely on photographic evidence must be served in person with notice of the violation within one hour of the occurrence of the violation. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to toll collection enforcement.
The South Carolina Attorney General’s Office has responded to two questions posed to it regarding the legality of the City’s ticketing practices. First, in a June 28, 2010 letter responding to a request from Senator Larry Grooms asking whether it would be legal for a law enforcement agency to send citations by certified mail, the Attorney General stated that pursuant to its interpretation of the new law:
[w]hile R. 312 authorizes the use of “photographic evidence . . . for violations that occur while relief from regulations pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 390.22 has been granted due to an emergency”, there is no further authorization for the use of photographic evidence generally for traffic violators. Therefore in the opinion of this office, photographic evidence may not be used in assisting an officer in observing and reviewing a traffic violation except in those limited circumstances. Moreover as specified in R. 312, “[a] person who receives a citation for violating traffic laws relating to speeding or disregarding traffic control devices based solely on photographic evidence muse be served in person with notice of the violation within one hour of the occurrence of the violation.” There is no provision for use of certified mail in such circumstances.
In another Attorney General Opinion issued on July 9, 2010, in response to Representative Todd Rutherford’s question regarding whether the Town of Ridgeland’s citations are enforceable in light of R. 312, the Attorney General stated that:
While R. 312 authorizes the use of “photographic evidence . . . for violations that occur while relief from regulations pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 390.22 has been granted due to an emergency,” there is no further authorization for the use of photographic or video camera evidence for traffic violators. Therefore, in the opinion of this office, photographic or video camera evidence may not be used in assisting an officer in observing and reviewing a traffic violation except in those limited circumstances set forth by R. 312.
According to the Ridgeland Municipal Court Traffic Court Roster , approximately 1,950 people have been charged with a traffic violation and are scheduled to appear in traffic court on Monday, January 3, 2010. At fines ranging from $100-$300, this is an extremely profitable way to recoup funds for the Town, especially considering the fact that the majority of people stopped are traveling through South Carolina to an out of state destination and will likely pay the fine to avoid traffic court.
As a result of our investigation, The Strom Law Firm, LLC has filed a class action lawsuit challenging the use of the iTraffic system. Our lawsuit against the Town of Ridgeland demands justice on behalf of all people who were sent a State of South Carolina Uniform Traffic Ticket by the Town of Ridgeland Police Department for speeding based in part upon photographic evidence taken by camera, and whose mailing address is outside of Jasper County, South Carolina.
Given that we filed our lawsuit as a class action, we are not accepting any new clients at this time. However, it is important to know that in the event that the Court certifies our class, we will be seeking justice on behalf of everyone who falls within the parameters of the class set by the Court.
If you or someone you know has received one of these traffic citations from the Town of Ridgeland, we would like to hear from you. Please post your comments below and describe the details surrounding your traffic citation. Also, please indicate whether your driving was impaired by the flash of the light from the video camera or whether anything else distracted you.
We will keep you updated as information develops.
{ 56 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Two weeks ago I traveled from Jacksonville, Florida, to see my brother-in-law and his wife in Rock Hill, South Carolina. I was caught by this camera but was unaware I had been photographed.
On the return journey, I was caught again and did notice a red flash out the corner of my eye that caused me to take my eyes off the road briefly to determine what it was. So in trying to improve road safety, this device impairs road safety if only momentarily. I am unemployed, so two tickets at $133 each has gone down really well. Then I read your web site and feel incensed that a town can flout state laws in this manner. As an immigrant from the UK, it goes against my British sense of propriety and runs contrary to British police procedures, where only speeds in excess of 85 mph in a 70 mph limit result in a ticket. Of course, I am no longer in the UK but 26-year-old driving habits die hard. I wish you every success in your legal challenge and, if victorious, look forward to reimbursement.
I was traveling north on i-95 and was distracted by flash to where i looked quickly to the right to see an RV with a camera taking pictures. This was distracting to me as a driver because of the flash. I received a ticket over 2 weeks later for 81/70. NO way!
I recently got a ticket in the mail, from ridgeland SC. 83 in a 70 while driving back to Florida after attending a funeral. I can’t afford the gas & time it takes to return. This is unfair, because i’ll get points on my liscense, & higher insurance premium. This county needs to be stopped.
I live in Jacksonville, FL and was visiting a friend in Charleston, SC a few weeks ago. I went under an overpass and noticed a shotty, run-down looking camper and was actually distracted by the fact of how out of place it looked. As I was passing it i instantly saw the tripod in front of it and then a big red flash. It gave me spots in my eyes, I was confused and visually impaired for a brief time, disoriented by the whole thing. I had never seen a speed trap like that so I wasn’t sure exactly what it was. I received the ticket in the mail last week with my photograph and the fine I was issued. It stated I was going 83 in a 70, fine amount for $133. It’s sounds like quite a scam they have going, my “safety” was jeopardized more by the distracting camper set-up and the extremely strong red flash that had me seeing spots!!! Please let me know if there is any further information that can help, I would love to join the fight!
I just got a ticket along with the finger wagging letter from the Chief. I’m 50 something weighing in at 170, the photo is obviously of a 300 lb 20 something driving my daughters car. They obviously made no attempt to match speed trap photos to DL photos. Guess who gets to drive down state to argue with these scam artists in court?
What’s happened? Has your firm lost interest in this matter? Does the abuse continue? WHEN will you file the class action? Please advise and do not quit on us.
← Previous Comments
{ 1 trackback }