Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court reviews red‑light and crossing‑guard appeals; some citations overturned after video review
Summary
State Court judges reviewed multiple red‑light and crossing‑guard citations: several citizen appeals were granted after video review while other appeals were denied and assessed fines (including $1,000 crossing‑guard penalties); the judge stressed stopping for school buses and noted payment options and appeal procedures.
The State Court devoted a significant portion of the afternoon calendar to red‑light and crossing‑guard citations. Judges and court staff reviewed camera footage and related photographs in multiple cases, granting some appeals and denying others based on timing and visual evidence.
Notable outcomes: the court granted appeals in several crossing‑guard matters after reviewing video that showed very tight timing between a bus pulling to a stop and a driver’s passage; in other cases where the bus was clearly stopped with the stop sign extended, the court denied the appeal and imposed the statutory crossing‑guard fine (typically $1,000) with courts providing 60–90 days to pay or modification orders. For lower‑severity red‑light/speed camera matters the court often assessed fines of approximately $75 (plus administrative fees) and provided procedures for online payment or in‑person payment at the clerk’s window.
Judge Tammy Long Hayward repeatedly emphasized public‑safety considerations: drivers should stop when they see a stopped school bus or flashing school‑zone lights because small timing differences can expose children to serious risk. For appellants who assert they were not the driver, clerks and prosecutors directed them to file notarized affidavits and use the vendor website (violationinfo.com) to submit appeals and PIN information; the solicitor’s office offered to review submitted affidavits and video before the court made a final ruling.
The court instructed defendants who wished to contest citations to provide complete documentation (including notarized affidavits and dash‑cam footage when available), and explained that crossing‑guard citations generally carry a mandatory fine unless the video or affidavit exculpates the driver.
