Q: I would like to sue the city of Maitland for red light cameras with shortened yellow traffic lights

A: I deal with the tickets. I will agree that the entire Red Light Camera debacle is a scam for money, not safety. When we were able to fight these and win on the evidence (or lack thereof) things were good. That ended around 2013. After that, all the attitudes of the judges and hearing officers changed. All of a sudden the evidence was let in.

The shortened amber light times that came into effect right as the state law was enacted was suspicious. Changing the amber times required an administrative code change which usually takes about a year with all the required hearings. In fact, there has never been an administrative code regulating these cameras. Instead, a letter dated December 16, 2010, was issued.

When they amended the statute around 2012, they adopted the administrative hearings that you dealt with. Another total scam. These are true Kangaroo courts. Run by the municipalities that benefit from the cameras and hearing officers hired by the municipalities. People taking their notice of violations there never have a chance.

In my 24 years of criminal practice, I have never seen anything as filthy in the court system as these cameras. Hearsay is overlooked. The enforcement officer doesn't need to introduce any evidence regarding date of violation, who was driving the vehicle, etc.

Suing the City would probably be just throwing your money away. You need to discuss that with a civil lawyer. A better option would be to do what the small group of people in Apopka did and protest. Apopka no longer has cameras and that, to me, is shocking. Law enforcement was very pro camera there. Once a mayor won who ran on getting rid of the cameras, the entire city council fell in line.

Good Luck

Eric J Dirga

Eric J Dirga, PA