The court denied issuance of a writ of mandamus and the initiative proponents appealed. The initiative proponents sued, seeking to require the clerk to transmit the petitions to the county. Since the supreme court had determined that initiatives on such issues was beyond the scope of the initiative power, the city clerk did not file the initiative petitions with the county auditor. 684 () – After the City of Redmond provided for automatic traffic safety cameras, an initiative was filed with the city clerk seeking an initiative on such cameras.
The court, on appeal, denied Wallin's efforts, affirming the lower court's decision. Wallin appealed, arguing a variety of issues, including challenges to the city's standing, ripeness, Freedom of Speech, etc.
City of Mukilteo, 174 Wn.2d 41 (2012) that the decision to provide for such cameras was not subject to initiative. Ultimately the initiative process was stopped after the Supreme Court concluded in Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government v. An initiative was filed to reverse the action. 763 () – Longview adopted an ordinance providing for the placement of automated traffic safety cameras. For information on the retention of automated traffic safety camera footage, see our page Retention Requirements for Law Enforcement Records.īelow are selected court decisions pertaining to automated traffic safety cameras, and specifically whether or not the use or authorization of such cameras is subject to initiative or referendum. Photographs, electronic images, or any other personally identifying data from automated traffic safety cameras are for the exclusive use of law enforcement and are prohibited from release to the public under RCW 46.63.170(1)(g).
Everett traffic cameras drivers#
Some jurisdictions have also imposed temporary grace periods after the cameras are activated to educate drivers without ticketing them.Ĭities and counties using automated cameras must post an annual report on their websites showing: Once the initial cameras are installed, the jurisdiction must conduct an additional analysis before adding any new cameras or relocating existing cameras.Īll camera locations must be clearly marked at least 30 days before the camera is activated. The local legislative body must prepare an analysis of the locations where the automated cameras are proposed prior to enacting the initial ordinance. For certain speed zone cameras, cities must remit 50% of the noninterest proceeds (after administrative costs) to the state. The compensation paid to the camera vendor or manufacturer must be based on the value of the equipment and services provided or rendered in support of the system and may not be based on the fines, penalties, or revenues, generated by the equipment. The statute lays out additional procedural requirements, including signage, public records considerations, and notices of infractions.
Everett traffic cameras driver#
The cameras may only take pictures of the vehicle and the vehicle’s license plate and only while the infraction is occurring the photos must not reveal the face of the driver or passengers, and cities and counties must consider installing the cameras in a manner that minimizes the impact of the camera flash on drivers.Īutomated traffic infractions are processed in the same manner as parking infractions.
However, all of these camera placement requirements are very detailed and will require careful review and analysis. The legislature has also periodically authorized additional pilot projects in specific jurisdictions.Ĭamera placement is restricted to certain areas including multi-arterial intersections, railroad crossings, school speed zones and school walk areas, public park speed zones, hospital speed zones, and certain priority road safety locations. These cameras may be used to detect stoplight violations (red light cameras), railroad crossing violations, and (in limited contexts) speed violations. RCW 46.63.170 authorizes cities and counties in Washington State to use automated traffic safety cameras in limited situations.
0 kommentar(er)
