CAN POLICE SEARCH YOUR CELL PHONE

www.kisslinglaw.com


Interesting post on whether a police officer has probable cause to search your cell phone if you are placed under arrest.  Thank you to the NC SOG for the article.

The question in the title of this post is one that I’ve been asked lots of times in different factual contexts. The basic question is, given that most people have cell phones, and that people tend to use their phones to document and to communicate about just about everything that they do, is it reasonable to believe that a person who has committed a crime has evidence of that crime on his or her phone?

I don’t see that as categorically reasonable. For example, I doubt that most shoplifters document their shoplifting on their phones, so absent some indication to the contrary, evidence that a person acting alone shoplifted an item doesn’t strike me as providing probable cause to search the person’s phone. But in many circumstances, there will be probable cause to search a suspect’s phone, whether with a warrant or pursuant to an exception to the warrant requirement. That’s particularly likely where a crime is committed by a group (because the coconspirators may have communicated with one another via text message), or involves a transaction (because the participants may have arranged the transaction using their phones).

Courts across the country don’t see eye to eye on this, with some wanting specific evidence of a nexus between the crime and the phone before finding probable cause, and others being willing to find probable cause based mainly on the type of offense at issue. Two recent cases illustrate the different approaches courts may take.

In United States v. Griffith, 867 F.3d 1265 (D.C. Cir. 2017), police obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s home for evidence of a gang-related homicide committed more than a year earlier. The officers were interested mainly in the defendant’s digital devices. The application stated that “gang . . . members involved in criminal activity maintain regular contact with each other . . . and share intelligence about their activities through cell phones and other electronic communication devices.” What they actually found was a firearm, which the defendant, as a convicted felon, could not lawfully possess. The defendant moved to suppress, arguing that there was no showing that he owned a cell phone, no showing that a cell phone would be in the residence, and no showing that any phone would contain pertinent evidence.

That argument didn’t persuade the trial court but it prevailed on appeal. First, the appellate court acknowledged that most Americans own cell phones, but said that there was no evidence that the defendant, who had recently been in jail for months on unrelated charges, did so. The court was “aware of no case . . . in which police obtained authorization to search a suspect’s home for a cell phone without any particularized information that he owned one.” Second, even if the defendant owned a phone, it would not necessarily be at the residence, especially if the defendant were not present. And third, the likelihood that the defendant’s phone would contain evidence of the murder was not high. Officers “might often fairly infer that a suspect’s phone contains evidence of recent criminal activity . . . perhaps especially when, as here, multiple perpetrators may have coordinated the crime.” But the shooting took place a year earlier, and the defendant might have changed phones in the interim. Even if not, he had “ample opportunity” and “every incentive” to delete incriminating evidence from his phone. Summing up, the court stated:

In view of the limited likelihood that any cell phone discovered in the apartment would contain incriminating evidence of [the defendant’s] suspected crime, the government’s argument in favor of probable cause essentially falls back on our accepting the following proposition: because nearly everyone now carries a cell phone, and because a phone frequently contains all sorts of information about the owner’s daily activities, a person’s suspected involvement in a crime ordinarily justifies searching her home for any cell phones, regardless of whether there is any indication that she in fact owns one. Finding the existence of probable cause in this case, therefore, would verge on authorizing a search of a person’s home almost anytime there is probable cause to suspect her of a crime. We cannot accept that proposition.

In contrast, consider State v. Moats, 168 A.3d 952 (Md. Ct. App. 2017). Officers determined that the defendant had provided drugs to friends and suspected that he  participated in a sexual assault against one of the friends. An officer obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s cell phone. The affidavit stated in part that in the officer’s experience, “individuals who participate in such crimes communicate via cellular telephones, via text messages, calls, e-mails etc.” A search of the phone resulted in the discovery of child pornography, and the defendant moved to suppress, contending that there was an insufficient “nexus” between the suspected crimes and the phone. That argument was unsuccessful at trial and again on appeal:

Petitioner points out that the warrant affidavit was devoid of specific facts linking the crimes and the cell phone. That much is so, but such direct evidence has never been required by the Fourth Amendment. . . . The information [the officer] set forth in the warrant affidavit supports a reasonable inference that Petitioner’s cell phone contained evidence of his connection to the drug-related charges and sexual assault investigation. . . . [S]ome deference also is to be given to [the officer’s] knowledge gained through his training and experience that persons use cell phones to communicate and that evidence of the crimes being investigated, and any related crimes, would be found on Petitioner’s cell phone. . . . This was not an unreasonable inference to draw, considering not only the prevalence of cell phones but also the degree of detail of one’s daily life that is often contained in a cell phone. . . . The nature of the criminal activity of which Petitioner was suspected supported a common-sense conclusion that he might have incriminating evidence on his cell phone. . . . By its description, the crime of drug distribution involves at least two participants—the supplier and the consumer. . . . Other crimes that by definition do not require more than one perpetrator may nevertheless involve other individuals depending on the individual facts and circumstances of the crime. Any one of these examples could permit a reasonable inference that digital communications exist on the cell phones of any one of the participants. . . . It is likewise not unusual that persons committing a sexual assault, or an accomplice witnessing the crime, document the crime on their cell phones.

Suspended NC Drivers License

www.kisslinglaw.com


There are many reasons your license may be revoked by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles.  Below is a list of issued for which the DMV may revoke your license.

The length of a driver’s license suspension depends on the reason it was suspended. Common causes for suspension and the length of the first suspension include:

First DWI offense	1 year
Second DWI offense	4 years
Third DWI offense	Permanent
Refusing to take a breath or blood test	1 year
Death by vehicle (misdemeanor)	1 year
Death by vehicle (felony)	Permanent
Obtaining a driver's license/permit using false information	1 year
Speeding and driving recklessly (same incident)	60 days
2 charges of driving recklessly in 12 months	1 year
Placing bets, watching, or loaning out a car for racing	3 years
Intentionally racing another vehicle	3 years
Speeding at least 15 MPH over the limit of 55 MPH	30 days
Speeding at least 15 MPH over the limit of 55 MPH (second offense)	60 days
Speeding at least 15 MPH over the limit of 55 MPH while avoiding arrest	1 year

Your license can also be suspended for:

• Having 2 convictions of speeding (over 55 mph) in 12 months.
• Having 1 conviction of speeding (over 55 mph) and 1 conviction of reckless driving in 12 months.
• Part of a sentence or suspended court sentence that revokes your driving privileges.
• A conviction for speeding over 75 mph.

NOTE: Some suspensions last until the driver meets certain requirements. For example, if your driver’s license is suspended for failing to pay child support, it cannot be reinstated until you have paid the money you owe.
Provisional License Suspensions
If you are younger than 18 years old, you face suspension of up to 6 months, depending on how many violations you’ve committed.

Driver’s License Points Suspension

One of the most common causes for a suspended North Carolina driver's license is the accumulation of driver’s license points. Your driving record shows the points currently accumulated against your NC driver’s license.
Points are put on your driving record for moving violations and other infractions. The amount of points you get will depend on the violation.
Once you receive 7 points, you may be required to attend a Driver Improvement Clinic. Completing this clinic will remove 3 points from your license. You can only attend a Driver Improvement clinic 1 time in a 5-year period. In order to reduce your points, you will need to qualify and complete a conference with a driver license hearing officer.
Your driver’s license will be suspended if you accumulate 12 points or more in 3 years (or 8 points or more in the 3 years following a license suspension). Suspension length is dependent upon the number of suspensions you’ve had:

• First suspension: 60 days maximum.
• Second suspension: 6 months maximum.
• Any subsequent suspensions: 1 year.

One of the most common reasons for suspension is failure to pay your fines, or Failure to Comply and Failure to Appear in court.  Both of these suspensions will result in an permanent indefinete  suspension until you have either paid your court costs and fine or gone to court to resolve your citation.
]
With regard to the FTC, that issue can be resolved by paying the fine.   There is a court ordered $50 fee for any FTC.  The FTA can only be resolved by taking care of the citation.  There is an addition fee of $200 for the FTA.  If you have an FTA, you will usually want to hire an attorney to make sure it is resolved correctly to prevent any future suspension due to a moving violation while your license was revoked.

Affect of Driving School on Teenage Drivers

www.kisslinglaw.com

I have often thought making a teenage driver attend a safe driving course to get a ticket reduced was not only a waste of time but simply a money grab by the system to get more money to a private organization or the community colleges.  The article below confirms this thought by showing drivers training does little if any to make teens better drivers.

Thanks again to Shea Denning of the NC School of Government for her article.



Fifteen-year-old Laura Yost died on September 23 from injuries she sustained after the teenage driver of the car she was riding in turned left in front of an oncoming dump truck. A few days later, fifteen-year-old Braden Rock died after his 17-year-old sister turned left in front of an oncoming car. The next morning, 11–year-old Michael Burgess was walking across the street to board his school bus when he was struck by a car driven by a 16-year-old and seriously injured. Many have questioned in the wake of these events how such injuries might be prevented in the future.
Some have raised concerns about the legislature’s decision last session to eliminate state funding for local driver’s education programs beginning with the 2015-16 fiscal year. Yet all of the teenager drivers involved in these accidents successfully completed driver’s education, and it obviously did not inoculate them from negligent driving. Perhaps more such accidents would occur if there were no formalized driver’s education training.  Unfortunately, despite the millions spent on driver’s education programs in North Carolina every year for decades, the simple truth is that we have no idea whether driver’s education has any effect on teen driving safety.

There is no data.  The General Assembly’s Program Evaluation Division (PED) submitted a lengthy report to the legislature last March recommending that it strengthen the accountability of the statewide driver education program by requiring statewide performance measures to assess its effectiveness and efficiency. The report contains a blistering review of the Department of Public Instruction’s (DPI) oversight and management of driver’s education. The report concluded that DPI did not collect sufficient and reliable data to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of driver education, did not have a uniform method to deliver driver education statewide, and did not monitor local instructors. Among the findings reported were that 46% of students attempting the DMV license test from 2007 through 2013 failed the test—including students making multiple attempts.  All of these students had successfully completed driver’s education.
What does work? While North Carolina’s accident and fatality rates for teen drivers remains high, teen traffic injury and fatality rates in North Carolina and nationwide have declined substantially over the past decade. That decline is attributed in large measure to graduated driver’s licensing, of which novice driver education is a part. However, research suggests that components of graduated licensing other than formalized driver education have accounted for the reduction. Namely, reduced accident rates have been associated with delaying unsupervised teen driving, increasing hours of mature adult supervised behind-the-wheel experience, limiting nighttime driving, and limiting novice teen drivers to no more than one teen passenger.
The Center for the Study of Young Drivers, part of the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, says that most novice drivers don’t have enough practical experience when they are first licensed.  Indeed, the Center characterizes the limited experience teens gain in standard driver education programs as “not even enough for novice drivers to become minimally competent, much less proficient.” The Center states that additional research is needed to determine how much driving experience is enough, noting that one study found a decrease in crash rates among teens who amassed about 118 hours of supervised driving practice before being licensed.
There’s an app for that. The Center has developed a smartphone application, Time to Drive, to support supervisors of teen drivers. The app records the amount of driving and conditions, and generates a log that drivers can provide to DMV, keeps track of “hard stops,” and encourages the parent and teen to meet driving goals.
Parents can supervise even when they aren’t in the car. The Center suggests that parents can also play an important role after their teen begins to drive unsupervised by, for example, negotiating a parent-teen driving agreement that clearly spells out the expectations and responsibilities of parents and teens and using devices, such as DriveCam, that allow vehicle information and driver behavior to be recorded and monitored.
The Time to Drive webpage has many other helpful hints for parents, including advice about what kind of vehicles are best for a novice driver.
The entire community is looking for a solution, and advice from the experts seems a good place to start.

Red Light Camera Ticket

www.kisslinglaw.com


In most cases it is difficult to fight a red light camera ticket.  Here is a great article on the issue here in Raleigh.

If you received the citation from Raleigh and you are the owner of the vehicle but not the driver, you have a State-sanctioned way out of paying and not disclosing the name of the driver.

If you received the citation from Wilmington, there is no fast way out of paying a ticket. See "Ignoring Your Citation".

If you received the citation from Knightdale, then it must be for a violation prior to October 2013. At that time Knightdale let its contract with Redflex expire. Knightdale turned off the cameras and the cameras have been off ever since.

The conditions which make red light cameras blossom like weeds come from the practices of NCDOT traffic engineers, not from driving behavior as most assume. Raleigh and Wilmington simply exploit the conditions for profit. Fighting the problem on a front other than engineering/physics is really vanity. You may use the easy-way out as described below for your own personal ticket, but your problem won't go away. You will most likely get another red light camera ticket. The NCDOT has stacked the deck, the City deals the cards, and the house always wins. For a permanent solution, see "Fighting the Engineers" below.

Know that the lion's share of your money is not going to education but to the red light camera company. Raleigh pays a fixed cost per camera per month ($2250/mo) + other fees resulting in about 65% going to ACS. Knightdale gave $45 out of every $50 fine Redflex. Cary gave 90% to Redflex. Wilmington is far worse. In order to keep its red light cameras, Wilmington runs about a million dollar deficit each year. Under a different State law, Wilmington must pay the school district 90% of gross penal fines. In order to do that and still pay American Traffic Solutions (ATS), Wilmington has to money launder. Without operating the cameras, Wilmington could give the school district the same amount of money.

Owner But Not Driver

This option works in Raleigh.

If you are the owner of the vehicle but were not driving at the time and location on the ticket, do not pay. Do not divulge the driver's name either. You have another choice which the citation does not mention. You can say, "I was not driving at the time and location on the citation." Sign the appropriate affidavit below and mail it first-class to the mayor. It is legal to do this and the city must accept it. The instructions are in the download.

If you are angry enough and you want to take action beyond just mailing in the affidavit, then you can do something fruitful. Sign up for an Administrative Hearing. See below.

Raleigh	Affidavit
Wilmington	Sorry. Wilmington operates under a different statute.

Red light camera citations from Raleigh have been fraudulent since the beginning of its red light camera program. Every citation is intentionally worded to omit your legal rights.

With willful intent and prior knowledge, John Sandor of Raleigh commits felony fraud by omitting the accused' legal rights on the Raleigh citations to secure payment. The Cary News published Sandor's confession on August 22, 2012. In his statement, Sandor lies to vehicle owners to prevent vehicle owners from possibly lying. At this time there are some 160,000 counts of fraud against Sandor. The mayor of Raleigh, Nancy McFarlane, also confesses in this ABC TV news report.

If you choose to settle the owner-not-driver issue personally with Safelight Raleigh, then you can walk into the Safelight Raleigh office and ask for the owner-not-driver affidavit. Safelight has prepared an affidavit for this purpose. The problem of course remains. With just a citation in hand, no one knows the possibility exists.

Finally your obedience to Raleigh's city ordinances while the government of Raleigh willfully disobeys the ordinances is your decision. Past and current acts of making statements omitting an owner's legal rights in order to secure payment have always been felonies. If Raleigh was a person, Raleigh would have been ordered to make 8 million dollars in restitution and would have been thrown in jail for 20 years. The wording of the law has been clear since 2001, yet Raleigh chose and still chooses to disobey the law in order to secure money. The combined cities of Raleigh, Knightdale and Cary have illegally collected over 17 million dollars.

Ignoring Your Citation

In all of North Carolina you are not responsible for paying a red light camera citation if you do not receive the citation within 90 days of the violation.

Raleigh and Knightdale: Session Law 2003-380 Section 3(2)

Wilmington: NCGS 160A-300.1(c)(1a)

Because Safelight does not hand-deliver the citation but rather sends the citation by mail, Safelight really does not know whether you received the citation. State law hinges on you receiving notification, not on Safelight's word that it mailed you notification. If you are going to ignore your citation, you must truly ignore it. Do not respond to the original citation. Do not respond to the penalty notice. Wait until the Safelight makes the next move (see below for what that is) and make sure that when you respond, you respond 90 days after the alleged violation.

Know that many people never receive their citations. Know that you do not have to give an excuse to Raleigh or Wilmington for why you did not receive notification. In civil cases, it is the plaintiff's responsibility (Raleigh or Wilmington) to produce a preponderance of evidence that you received notification. It is not your responsibility to prove that you did not receive notification.

Here are common reasons why one never receives notification:

1. Many people are on vacation and never receive the mail until it is too late.

2. Many people are in the process of moving, and the mail does not get forwarded to them.

3. Spouses separate for an impending divorce. The spouse remaining in the house does not forward the mail to the spouse who fled.

3. Many people find that these citations look like junk mail or a scam letters and throw them out.

4. Many people have family members opening the mail. Your spouse may have simply thrown away the citation. It happens.

If Safelight real wants its money legitimately, Safelight can serve you civil notice the old fashioned way--by dispatching a person who hands you the citation. That option is explicitly written into the North Carolina red light camera laws. Safelight opts not to use this method because it costs too much. Instead Safelight relies on the US mail and intimidation tactics, the latter in order to get you to turn yourself in.

The following is what to expect when you ignore the citation. Different cities do different things:

Raleigh

As of July 2013 we know that "ACS Raleigh" will hit your credit score if you ignore your citation. A credit report from TransUnion (a credit reporting agency) will reveal a line saying, "ACS Raleigh" at "212 Wolfe Street Raleigh, NC 27601." ACS is the private company who owns Raleigh's red light cameras.

You can call TransUnion and dispute the item.

The nature of the dispute is that the civil fine which ACS wants to collect is by federal definition not a debt. Because it is not a debt, it is not subject to collection. TransUnion is violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by taking ACS's word for it that the ACS reported a valid debt. TransUnion's legal obligation is to ignore ACS-Raleigh, and could even file criminal charges of fraud against ACS Raleigh.

The legal definition of debt is:

15 U.S. Code Section 1692A. Black's Law Dictionary goes into more detail.

While the North Carolina State Session Law 2001-286 allows ACS to regard the fine as a debt, the US Code does not. The wording in the NC State Law contradicts the higher law. (Red light camera companies routinely introduce these change-of-definition deceptions.) A red light camera fine is not "an obligation to pay money arising out of a transaction in which the money, property, insurance, or services which are the subject of the transaction are primarily for personal, family, or household purposes." The fine is not a judgment: No court or other tribunal has resolved a controversy and determined the rights and obligations of the parties.

There also remains the matter that you were never served a notice. ACS mailing you a fine without requiring your own signature to indicate you received the notice, then assuming that you have received the notice, violates civil procedure and section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the United States. The NC Session Law requires that you receive notification before the fine becomes legal and ACS does not provide the instrument by which it can verify your notification.

In the end there are no grounds for ACS to collect. As it has been reported to us, a call to TransUnion and filling out their on-line dispute form will remove the blemish from your record. Here is a letter you can attach to the dispute form. One person had the issue resolved within minutes. Another person called John Sandor, the director of the Safelight Raleigh, and Sandor called TransUnion and had the blemish removed.

Legally TransUnion has 30 days to respond.

If Safelight Raleigh tries to get you to pay the citation by revising the due date on your citation, that is illegal. Safelight Raleigh has overstepped in the enabling statute. If you receive the citation 90 days after the violation, by enabling statute Session Law 2003-380, the citation is void. Period.

Wilmington

If you ignore a Wilmington citation, we know that the City of Wilmington will eventually try to garnish your North Carolina State Tax Refund $100.00; that is, if you have a refund coming. The City of Wilmington uses a little known law to do this: NCGS 105-A. To prevent the City of Wilmington from collecting either do what's in the following paragraph, or do your personal accounting in such a way that you do not get a State Tax Refund.

Wilmington invented a number of contingencies in order to collect from people who claimed never to have received the citation. For example Wilmington has an prepared affidavit saying you were on an extended vacation and did not receive the citation in time. If you sign the affidavit, Wilmington cancels the penalties and resets the clock and makes you pay the original $50. These contingencies are illegal. Wilmington is overstepping North Carolina's enabling statute. Statute Session Law 2003-380 calls a violation not received after 90 days void. The law stops there. The law does not authorize any contingency procedure. Do not sign such an affidavit. If Wilmington insists that you pay, you might have to call the police and have the police force the City of Wilmington to honor the law. (Such a thing happened in a parallel circumstance in the Town of Cary.)

Knightdale, Cary

As of July 2013 we know that Knightdale's and Cary's Redflex citations will not hit your credit record. Absolutely nothing happens in the end if you do not pay a Redflex ticket. In October 2013, Knightdale shut down its red light camera program. Cary shut down its program in August 2012.

Who is your Advocate?

The media is your best advocate. These cases of fraud are clear-cut and of public interest. The media generally does not hesitate to expose the fraud.

It is possible to go to the police but there is no long term success in this. The police may take your one isolated citation and force its City's Safelight program to cancel it, but the City will continue defrauding the public. The City will continue to screw everyone else without blinking an eye. For example even after two legal confrontations with Cary over the owner-not-driver issue, Cary choose continue to defraud the public for two additional years. It was only after a Wake County Superior Court judge chastised Cary in court when Cary changed its mind. After hearing Cary's outcome, the Town of Knightdale decided to comply with this law too. Cary and Knightdale both have shutdown their programs.

The NC State of Bureau of Investigation is not your advocate. The Attorney General is not your advocate. They do not get involved in local police matters. The SBI's suggestion is to contact the media.

Fighting the Engineer

The real fight is here. The NCDOT traffic engineer is the problem. The best thing you can do is file a complaint with the North Carolina Board of Engineers (NCBELS) against the traffic engineer who signed and sealed the traffic signal plan for your intersection. Ask the City Clerk for the "current traffic signal plan" for your intersection. The name of the engineer is on the plan. The complaint form requires a witness. We will sign as a witness.

North Carolina laws for legal red light camera operation require the yellow light durations to be in full compliance with the MUTCD and that the traffic engineer must conform to NCGS 89C.

The yellow light durations do not comply with the MUTCD and the engineer does not comply with NCGS 89C.

MUTCD

Violation 1: Steady Yellow Duration Shorter Than Traffic Signal Plan

All yellow light durations in North Carolina fail the MUTCD. MUTCD Sec. 4D.26-01 requires yellow change interval to be a steady yellow light. "Steady" is the key word. The law requires the steady yellow change interval to be at least as long as that written on the signal plan. But NC traffic engineers never account for bulb illumination time. The signal plan may say 4.5 seconds, but the steady part of that yellow time is about 4.3 seconds. North Carolina traffic engineers always short the yellow light by about 0.2 seconds. That mere 0.2 second accounts for about 30% of the red light camera revenue. This video illustrates the problem.

Violation 2: Yellow Not Same Duration Following Protected and Permissive Greens

North Carolina traffic engineers fail the MUTCD when setting the duration of left-turn yellow arrows on those left turn approaches which have both a protected and a permissive green phase. When traveling down a left turn lane, sometimes you get a green arrow. That green arrow is called a protected green: you have the right-of-way. Other times you get either a solid green ball or a flashing yellow arrow. The solid green ball or the flashing yellow is called a permissive green. You can go if you can but you do not have the right-of-way. The NCDOT traffic engineers fail the MUTCD for left turn approaches that have both a protected and permissive phase. The yellow following these phases must be the same duration (MUTCD 4D.17-07, 4D.26-09, 4D.04-3B, 1A.13-258). They do not. NCDOT typically sets the yellow duration after a protected green to 3.0 seconds and the one after the permissive green to 3.8 seconds (35 mph road) or 4.5 seconds (45 mph road). The yellows durations differ during the light cycle for the same yellow light--a direct violation of a MUTCD standard.

Violations of a MUTCD standard are winnable in court. We did not file complaints on these MUTCD violations in Court because we did not know about them at the time of the trial. For our trial, we complained about violations of NCGS 89C.

NCGS 89C

Every US State and Canadian Province has a clause like "the engineer must know the special knowledge of the physical sciences to do his engineering work." It is the engineers' failure to understand physics which is the root of the red light camera problem--which explains why the entire red light camera sector exists. We explain this problem in the papers on the home page of this web site. A good summary of the problem is in the Oct/Nov 2013 issue of Traffic Technology International.

Though it should be just a matter of fixing a physics mistake, traffic engineers will not even take the time to check their own assumptions and therefore never get to the point where they see their mistake, let alone correct it. When confronted with the mistake, they are instantly dismissive. "We are correct because we have been doing it this way for 50 years." Yet at the same time neither a single traffic engineer knows the math and physics behind their formula nor could name Newton's Laws of Motion. Their depositions testify to these facts.

We took the physics issues to court. The NCDOT basically plugs in the wrong numbers into the wrong formula. Unfortunately we found out the hard way that Wake County Superior Court is not the venue to discuss physics. It is too much to ask a non-scientific though-well-meaning judge to understand physics when the opposition is doing every thing it can to strike the laws of physics. We found that a simple truth gets overshadowed with poker-playing over culpability issues. In the end the judge was too uncomfortable to decide a matter of physics with such far-reaching consequences. He instead used the Town of Cary's culpability argument. That combined with a disparate local ordinance, the judge essentially trumped the laws of physics. So to this day, the problem remains unsolved. The NCDOT continues to harm people and continues to enable cities to capitalize on engineering malpractice.

To make it easier for a judge to come to the right decision, but moreover to solve the engineering problem, we are going to submit one complaint against each traffic engineer to the Board of Engineering. These complaints are not law suits submitted to the Court. These complaints are physics, math, engineering and ethics violations submitted to the North Carolina Board of Engineers. Under NCGS 89C, it is the Board's mandate to discipline engineers over these violations.

NCBELS is the government's empowered final authority on issues of NCGS 89C. Our hope is that NCBELS understands physics. If NCBELS rules that the traffic engineers do not comply with NCGS 89C, then all the red light camera operations in the State become illegal. North Carolina's red light camera law hinges on compliance with NCGS 89C. With such a ruling, we can go back to Court. The heat is now off a Wake County Superior Court judge. The judge can blame NCBELS for his far-reaching decision.

Sign up for an Administrative Hearing

It is possible to fight City Hall?

If you are the owner of the car but were not driving at the time and location of the citation, yes. You can fight City Hall and win. This is how you do it: Without claiming in any fashion that you were the driver of the car, sign up for a hearing. When you go to the hearing, say that you are the owner of the car but were not driving at the time and location on the citation. Do not say anything more than that. Let your lips be sealed. If the Hearing Panel convicts you, then pay the $50 fine and you are now in the legal position to bring a class action lawsuit against the City. Call us. With your involvement we can sue Raleigh or Knightdale for millions of dollars. This "owner not driver" issue can be won. The State statutes and city ordinances are very clear what Raleigh and Knightdale are supposed to do.

If you claim that "I just could not stop or the yellow did not last long enough", or "it was raining" then you are taking the punishment for physics errors made by the NCDOT when it sets yellow light durations. But this claim will get you nowhere. In the case of Ceccarelli vs Town of Cary, Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway used a local ordinance to trump the laws of physics, making it irrelevant whether the NCDOT practiced engineering correctly.

If you pay $50 without appealing your citation, you are guilty in the eyes of the law. You have confessed. You forfeit all legal rights. You can neither appeal your case in Superior Court nor be a representative in a class action.

Raleigh Intersection Problems

There are many engineering problems at all intersections with red light cameras. That is why the red light cameras are there--to exploit the engineering problems. Raleigh has made many mistakes setting yellow light times at all intersections. There exists problems common to every intersection. There exists problems specific to an intersection. We have analyzed only three intersections so far in Raleigh: Here are their specific engineering failures which Raleigh financially exploits at your expense:

	Capital Blvd. (NB) at New Hope Church Rd.
	New Hope Church Rd. (EB) at Brentwood
	Peace St. (EB) at West

We know that NCDOT engineers never measure approach speeds as required by their own spec. Engineers are supposed to set yellow light durations according to the speed of 85th percentile of freely-flowing car speeds, not the posted speed limit. We have not seen a single traffic signal plan where the NCDOT does this. We have measured approach speeds and they have always been greater than the posted speed limit.

We know that for some intersections ACS posts yellow times shorter than that of the signal. On Peace at West street, ACS says the time is 3.79 seconds. The signal plan says the time must be 3.8 seconds. This shortfall violates SL2004-141, and the operation of the red light camera is illegal.

We also know that at some intersections, Raleigh's ACS red light camera software prints false yellow times. The printed times are significantly longer than the signal gives, giving the impression that Raleigh gives you more time than they really do. For instance at Dawson @ Morgan, the printed yellow time is 4.1 seconds but the actual yellow time is 3.8 seconds. 0.3 seconds is the difference between 50 tickets per month and 150 tickets per month.

Safety

Raleigh advocates death for its motorists. On Raleigh's web site, there is a section called "Red Light Cameras is Other Cities." Raleigh uses the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) to justify its red light camera program. But IIHS studied Raleigh specifically and reported (p. 14) that the presence of red light cameras increased fatalities in Raleigh by 180%.

Wilmington has the same problems as Raleigh.

For a hearing, call:

Raleigh Safelight (owned by Xerox)	919-833-2549
Wilmington Safelight (owned by ATS)	910-343-4762

What is Your Defense?

If you sign up for a hearing in Raleigh you have to write down the reason why you feel you are innocent. Either say, "I am not the driver at the time and location on the citation" or write the following. It is true.

"[City] has created a dilemma zone at this intersection. I was in it when the light turned yellow. [City] forced me to run a red light."

When you go to the hearing, face the hearing panel and defend yourself with:

"All intersections have a dilemma zone because the NCDOT formula for yellow light durations sets yellow light durations which oppose the laws of physics. In order for me to obey the law, I have to break laws, unbreakable laws--the laws of physics. I cannot do that. Adjust your yellow light durations so that they are consistent with the physical laws of motions. Then judge me."

Additionally if you are a commercial truck driver, say "I need 2.5 second perception/reaction time for my rig and 0.5 seconds air-brake lag time. That is what the NCDOT CDL Manual requires for truck drivers. Your 3 second left turn yellow leaves me absolutely no time to brake." If you did not turn left, say, "You shorted me 1.5 seconds on the yellow. I am innocent. And you better increase your yellow light duration else I am going to kill someone and charge the City with wrongful death."

Wake County Speeding Ticket

www.kisslinglaw.com

Tomorrow is the primary for District Attorney in Wake County.  It has been 30 years since we had a new District Attorney in Wake County.  Last week, I sent the following e-mail to all candidates.:

My name is Lawrence Kissling.  I am an attorney in Wake County who represents clients who have received traffic tickets. Over the past 10 years, I have represented approximately 20,000 clients.  I have received request from most of them in the past month seeking my recommendation for the Wake County District Attorney race .  

My typical client’s only interaction with the court system is a traffic ticket.  As a result, they are not overly concerned with issues like violent crimes or new programs for decreasing crime.  What they are mostly concerned with is what will happen if and when they or someone in their family receives a traffic ticket.  Mostly, they want the know if you intend on changing the current policy and offering a reduction to Improper Equipment.  If  so, under what circumstances would you offer such a reduction.

The second question they are asking is about stop sign violations.  Currently, if you race through a stop sign and cause an accident, the District Attorneys Office will dismiss your charges if your insurance company pays the damages incurred by the other vehicle.  However, if you merely fail to come to a complete stop, you receive no reduction at all.  Do you plan on changing this policy or keeping it the same?

Thank you for your kind consideration in these matters.  My clients look forward to your response.

I received responses from three (3) of the candidates.  Here are there responses:

From Jeff Cruden:

I worked as an ADA in the 1st district for the first 3 years out of law school and we did IE's there and I did not notice a lack of security because of it. I see no reason not to offer them here also.

I have often thought about the unfairness of the dismissal in a wreck case upon delivery of an insurance letter but you can't get comparable treatment if your driving is less egregious and you don't cause a crash. I have not thought about that situation in a long time to be honest but when I become DA I would welcome the opportunity to talk with you & other members of the bar to hear your recommendations on how that should be handled. Thanks for your questions.

From Lorrin Freeman:

Mr. Kissling

Thank you for your email and questions.

At this time I have not committed to changing the policy on offering improper equipment pleas in traffic cases.  I do believe however that all tools to dispose of minor traffic offenses need to be considered in shaping policies as we move forward because court time needs to be used in a way to maximize time focused on more serious offenses such as driving while impaired.  I look forward to continuing this dialogue with the Defense Bar and our law enforcement community as we move forward.

Sincerely,

Lorrin Freeman

And from John Bryant:

I do not object to Improper Equipment reductions, but probably not for foolish driving or for multiple violations. 

Stop sign rolls, I’d find a creative way to help those with relatively clean records avoid having to burn the family PJC on rolling a stop sign. 

My goal would be to strengthen the driving habits of the people riding around in the County to help avoid some of the traffic in the Courthouse which is not necessary to accomplish the initial goal in this sentence.

Glad to speak with you about this, if you wish.  


 I did not not hear from any of the other candidates.

So why is this important.  Most of you will never be the victim of a violent crime.  Your only interaction with the court system is going to be with a traffic citation.  Wake County is currently one of the few counties where you cannot receive a reduction to Improper Equipment.  If you listen to those candidates who are currently working in the DA's office, there is a lot of talk about being tough on crime.  I would think that anyone elected with be though on violent crimes.  The question you need to ask yourself is how am I going to be treated when I have a speeding ticket or minor traffic offense.  Am I going to be treated like a criminal?