Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Automated Traffic Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edgewood resident questions automated traffic-camera citations, deputy affidavit language
Summary
At the Feb. 25 Edgewood City Council meeting, a resident raised concerns about VeriMobility-issued school-zone tickets, the wording of an accompanying deputy affidavit and whether the citations properly identify drivers.
Michael Stanzel, an Edgewood resident, used the council’s public-comment period on Feb. 25 to criticize automated traffic-enforcement notices issued by VeriMobility and to read portions of what he said were typical deputy-authenticated affidavits that accompany those notices.
Stanzel said one affidavit he received states that “based upon my review of photographs and or video recordings made by an automated photo enforcement camera, I have reasonable grounds and probable cause to believe … the operator of the vehicle described above was in violation” of a state traffic statute and that the violation is “enforced pursuant to Edgewood Municipal Code chapter 10.25.” He told the council the affidavit did not name the driver, only the registered owner, and said that raised questions about the fairness and reliability of the process.
"You should notice the deputy never names the person who is driving the statement. He just states under penalty of perjury that Michael Stansell owns the vehicle," Stanzel said, reading from an example. "How can anyone on this council or sitting in this room feel comfortable knowing that a person living in this country whether they live in Edgewood or not is being accused and fined by the government without any evidence? That infraction ... looks almost like a scam. They're just trying to trick somebody." (Speaker punctuation and capitalization as delivered.)
Stanzel said he had also downloaded a different example that appeared to be from Snohomish County in which the deputy affidavit included the deputy’s authorized user ID and password to authenticate the entry. He urged the council to consider whether the notices and affidavits provide adequate evidence and proper identification of the driver before citizens are fined.
The council did not take action during the meeting on enforcement cameras or citations; Stanzel’s remarks were made during audience comment. No council member offered a substantive response to request further investigation during the meeting. The meeting agenda proceeded to staff and council business items.
Details from Stanzel’s remarks and the example affidavits he read were presented to the council as part of public comment and were not introduced as formal evidence or as a staff report. Edgewood Municipal Code chapter 10.25 was cited in the affidavits he read and a state statute was cited in his example wording (transcript: “RCW 46.6 0.44” as read aloud).
