I Interview Speeding Ticket Ace Will Foreman

Will Foreman has now beat another speeding ticket by relying on facts. That's a least six times, maybe more. That makes him aces in my book

Before I disappeared for a few weeks, I asked him a series of questions (via email) about his court appearances. He answered. I asked if he would mind if I posted his answers as an email interview. He didn't. I asked a few more questions. He answered.

Now through the magic of cut and paste (and some grammatical correction), I offer a first hand perspective of what it is like to go into a Maryland courtroom to fight a speeding ticket. I offer the interview without comment. I offer my thoughts on the interview in my next post.

For the extremely dense of you out there, TSJ will stand for The Skeptical Juror and WF will stand for Will Foreman.

TSJ: When you appear in court, who represents the State?
WF: They normally have just a Forest Heights Police Officer (the last time I was there they had 2 officers, and Optotraffic had 2 reps there as well.

TSJ: How is the case against you presented to the judge?
WF: The officer reads the statement describing the location time place and speed.  He always explains how the machine "self checks itself daily"

TSJ: Would you be allowed to call witnesses?
WF: Sure

TSJ: Would you be allowed to subpoena people or documents?
WF: In advance I believe.

TSJ: Would you be allowed to have an attorney?
WF: Yes, but why? 

TSJ: Are all the cases being heard traffic ticket cases?
WF: Not all just traffic cases, the entire room is just Forest Heights / Optotraffic "offenders"

TSJ: About how long does each of your cases take?
WF: It varies.  Some judges have a problem grasping the matter.

TSJ Did you watch any of the other people present their case?
WF: That is the saddest part.  Forest Heights is not an affluent area.  Many of the people are there because they cannot afford to lose the 40 bucks.  At the risk of sounding like an elitist, there is a always a parade of poor uneducated people totally unprepared to defend themselves.  People argue their car cannot go that fast.  They claim there isn't a school near there.  I've even heard "I have lived here for x number of years, I know the camera is there, I always slow down there.  It is very, very sad.  And that's what makes me so upset!

WF: btw: The Wednesday morning courtroom is dedicated to just Forest Heights / Optotraffic cases.

[End of first round of questioning. Beginning of second round of questioning.]

TSJ: Can you elect to have a jury trial? 
WF: Yes It costs $80.00 and it's elevated to circuit court.

TSJ: Can you appeal a guilty verdict?  If so, how?
WF: Yes, again it's elevated to circuit court.

TSJ: Are you told what time your case will be heard, or do you have to plan to be there the entire time?
WF: No you must arrive for the calling of the docket and remain there until your hearing.

TSJ: What sort of defenses have been successful?
WF: I saw a scientist successfully make his case.  He was able to dispute the technology used by Optotraffic. I am requesting the transcript from the hearing because I want his name.  The Judge heard our defenses simultaneously.  We had to wait until the end.  We never met, but it was apparent to the Judge that both of our arguments were thoughtful and coherent.  In an attempt to expedite he heard us together. Some have gotten off because they were ticketed long after school hours. The majority of the successful arguments have focused on distance traveled between images.

TSJ: What sort of defenses have been unsuccessful?
WF: The most common is when the accused explains how long they have lived there.  That they are aware of the camera's presence.  That they make a conscious effort to slow down at the location.  Others have unsuccessfully argued that their cars cannot accelerate from the previous traffic light that quickly.  Many claim the camera isn't near a school. 

Our store manager unsuccessfully argued on our behalf for about 6 tickets regarding the cameras violations regarding the camera's placement.  Several guidelines found in the state's brochure regarding placement were violated: the camera isn't supposed to be on an incline, it is; the camera isn't supposed to be near a red light camera, it is 350 ft; the camera isn't supposed to be in a speed reduction zone, it is; there was supposed to be a 30 day period when the camera is introduced to a community.  Forest Heights camera spent its introductory period on a side street, far off the path.  When the 30 days were up they moved the unit to a 4 lane highway with guardrails, State Highway 210, and began issuing citations immediately.
 
TSJ: What is the nominal fine if you fight the case?
WF: It depends on the Judge.  My most recent session the Judge offers to everyone present that if they plead guilty he would reduce the fine to $2.00 plus court costs of $22.00.


TSJ: What is the nominal fine if you plead guilty?  
WF: I don't know what normal is, just what I stated above. 

TSJ: Why might someone show up and plead guilty rather than just pay the ticket by mail? 
WF: They are intimidated by the prospect of appearing before the Judge as well as the police officer that patrols the very streets where they reside. 

TSJ: What are the conditions of payment? Do people have to pay on the spot? Must they pay cash? 
WF: You must pay on the spot.  They will accept cash or credit cards. 

TSJ: What if people are unable to pay the penalty? 
WF: I don't know.

TSJ: What sorts of attitude do people generally assume? Are they angry? Are they subservient? Do they plead for mercy?
WF: All of the above.  Most are disgusted!  Many feel violated and absolutely helpless. Many won't return to fight because they feel it's not worth their time.

Back With a Whimper

This is the way the blogging resumes,

This is the way the blogging resumes,

This is the way the blogging resumes,

Not with a bang but with a whimper.

(100 meaningless points to the person who can identify the cultural reference.)

A lot has happened since I went dark.

Jason Williams was executed by the people of Alabama.

Donald Beaty was executed by the people of Arizona

Gaylord Bradford was executed by the people of Texas

Robert Simon, Jr. was granted a stay of execution by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

The Texas Forensic Science Commission sidestepped a finding regarding Cameron Todd Willingham. Governor Rick Perry is going to celebrate the whitewash by running for president of the United States.

David Wayne Spence is back in the news, in a dead sort of way. I scored him as 94 out of 100 on my Actual Innocence Scorecard.

The Supreme Court overturned Delma Banks death penalty. I previously scored Delma Banks 57 out of 100 on my Actual Innocence Scorecard.

Judge Kevin Fine threw out a jury's murder conviction and his own sentence.

Antonin Scalia got wrapped up with math once again, and it didn't work out.

Unfortunately, you missed the details because I was off doing whatever.  I didn't even complete whatever, and I still have a hell of a lot of work to do on whatever, but I'm going to try to ease my way back into blogging.

With all the heavy duty stuff that I missed and I should now be writing about, I'm going to take the easy way out. I'm going to write about Will Foreman and his traffic tickets.

Did I mention he beat another automated ticket in court?

Stay tuned.

Going Dark

I will not be posting any more this month or during the first week in June. I have a pressing, self-imposed obligation demanding my attention.

On Memorial Day, please remember to think of our troops. Consider doing something nice for one or more of them to show your appreciation.

tsj

Automating Wrongful Convictions: Overshooting The Mark

In the previous post of this indefinitely long series, I explained how Optotraffic's Automated Speed Enforcement system can report a car to be traveling 52 miles per hour when in fact the car is actually traveling at 35 miles per hour. This particular error is created when the lasers are not parallel to the road and strike the near side of the car rather than the centerline.

In this post, I discuss a similar error, this one caused when the lasers nearly overshoot (rather than nearly undershoot) the car. The potential error in this case is even greater than the previous case.

The lasers are more likely to overshoot the vehicle when the vehicle is passing the laser system in the nearest lane, as shown below.

The beams tend to overshoot the vehicle when some combination of the following conditions exist:

1. The laser beams are not properly aligned.

2. The cart is located too near the road.

3. The vehicle is not on the centerline of the road.

4. The cart is tilted away from the road.

5. The wind bends the 32' tower away from the road.

6. The lane is narrower than usual.

Any behavior that causes the laser beams to strike the vehicle beyond the centerline increases the chance that the system will overpredict the vehicle speed due to an overshoot.

The other factor that contributes to speed errors due to overshoot (or undershoot) are beams not perpendicular to the road. I describe these beams as being yawed. The beams can be yawed when:

1. The laser beams are not properly aligned.

2. The laser platform is yawed relative to the 32' tower.

3. The 32' tower is twisted due to wind or cable tension.

4. The cart is not parked parallel to the road.

In this example, the cart is so close to the road that the beams hit the road 2 feet beyond the lane centerline. The pickup is traveling 8 inches from the lane centerline. The beams are yawed 10 degrees such that the first beam to strike the vehicle overshoots more than the second.

Speaking of the first beam, here's where it strikes the pickup.

In this example, the beams are 29.25 inches apart. The truck, however will travel less than 29.25 inches before the second beam hits the truck, because the second beam will strike the truck closer to its front end, as shown below.

Instead of first contacting the upper portion of the fender, as did the first beam, the second beam first contacts the outer edge of the bumper.  The distance the truck traveled between first and second beams was foreshortened by the distance between the intial contact points of the two beams. To show that distance, I dropped a vertical line from each of the contact points, backed the pickup up, and measured the distance between the two vertical lines.  Here you go.

Having learned from my previous post, I increased the font size of the dimension. There is no need to enlarge the image to see that the beam distance was foreshortened by 14.69". (Feel free to click and enlarge if you wish.)

I think that might result in a substantial error. Let's check.

The actual distance traveled between beam contacts will be 29.25" - 14.69" = 14.56".  The system will assume the distance traveled was 29.25 inches. The speed calculation will be off by a factor of  29.25/14.56 = 2.

Holy Frijole!

Assuming an upstanding citizen passed beneath the Space Sigma Optotraffic DLS-10S Automated Speed Enforcement system under the conditions just described, and assuming that upstanding citizen was traveling at 35 miles per hour, that upstanding citizen would receive a speeding ticket in the mail for traveling 70 miles per hour.

TUC (the upstanding citizen) would be rightfully peeved, knowing that he or she never traveled anywhere near 70 miles per hour down that stretch of road. TUC might decide to fight the ticket rather than subserviently pay the $40 ticket by mail. TUC would decide to take a half day off work (assuming he or she was still employed in this economy) and sit through hours in a courtroom until the State was ready to hear his or her case. TUC might explain that he/she lives in the area, knows exactly where the piece of crap sophisticated laser system is parked, and explains that he/she would never travel 70 mph on that road even if the system wasn't there.

The representative from Optotraffic would explain to the judge their sophisticated system uses lasers that are calibrated against GPS beam pulses every single day. The judge would bang his gavel against that really cool gavel banging thing, and justice would be administered. TUC would be charged $40 for the ticket, and $44 for bothering the court.

Meanwhile, the Sigma Space Optotraffic web site will continue to offer the following quotes from President / CEO Marcos Sirota:

“Optotraffic is in the business of helping to protect public safety. Our company’s public trust and reputation are built entirely on the precision and highest degree of accuracy of our systems. We are proud that our calibration and testing are trusted and have been verified by the many Maryland municipalities that use our systems."

“Certainly, no one likes getting a speeding ticket, let alone paying a fine. And speed enforcement systems clearly do provide revenue for municipalities, revenue which by law is invested in further protecting public safety.”

ADDENDUM
For those of you who believe I must be three-dimensionally delusional when I suggest that the system may miscalculate the speed by a factor of 2, consider this article from The Washington Examiner, excerpted below.

A Maryland speed camera contractor is investigating whether its cameras have been miscalculating the speeds of large vehicles in Prince George’s County.

Lanham-based Optotraffic is analyzing a dozen citations that recorded buses and trucks exceeding the speed limit by more than 25 mph, Optotraffic CEO Marcos Sirota told The Washington Examiner.

Sirota began investigating citations when a camera on Rhode Island Avenue and 38th Street in Brentwood caught bus driver Kathleen LaFortune driving 58 mph in a 25 mph zone.

“I was absolutely devastated when I saw the ticket,” said LaFortune, who told The Examiner she drives past the camera 11 times daily on her bus route — which she has driven for the last year. “I have never broken the speed limit. There is just no way this is possible.”

Sirota said he is determining whether LaFortune’s ticket is valid. “Nothing immediately indicates there’s been a mistake,” he said. “We are identifying instances with some commonality so we can compare.” ...

Another driver is contesting a ticket that says his bus barrelled 78 mph through a 35 mph zone on Bladensburg Road — just one-half mile from where LaFortune was ticketed.

“These tickets are just exploding,” said Rick Hilmer, fleet management administrator. Hilmer said his office — which collects county bus drivers’ tickets—is averaging 30 citations a day.

Susan Hubbard, spokeswoman for Prince George’s Department of Public Works and Transportation, said she could not imagine a bus nearing 60 mph where [the unfortunate] LaFortune was ticketed. But [the unfortunate] LaFortune could not contest her July 28 ticket.

She [the unfortunate LaFortunate] says she was not notified of the violation until Aug. 26, seven days past the deadline for requesting a court date. Fleet management did not receive the ticket from Brentwood officials until Aug. 16, Hilmer said.

State law requires camera operators to mail citations within two weeks of the violation. Brentwood Police Chief David Risik did not return The Examiner’s calls to confirm the ticket was mailed within the legal time frame.

[The unfortunate] LaFortune’s employer, Veolia Transportation, received the ticket Aug. 20, Hubbard said, and LaFortune said another six days passed before Veolia notified her of the violation.

Veolia then suspended [the exceptionally unfortunate] LaFortune on Aug. 27 without pay, enrolled her in a three-day “refresher” training course and warned of termination if she gets another ticket, according to an internal notice from the company’s assistant general manager.

So Optotraffic strikes again, this time getting upstanding citizen Kathleen LaFortune suspended without pay. Let's see what President/CEO Markos Sirota has to say about that.

“The commercial interests of Optotraffic are totally aligned with delivering the best, most accurate, reliable laser sensing instruments to municipalities so that speeding accidents and injuries to people can be avoided.”

“For both the municipalities and for this respected company, our collective commitment to public safety is unyielding and will never be compromised for any reason."

The Impending Execution of Jason Williams

Jason Oric Williams sits on Alabama's death row awaiting his execution two days hence. There is no doubt that he is factually guilty of the crimes for which he is to die. I present the following summary from the decision in Jason Oric Williams v. State of Alabama. I have removed the legal references and introduced paragraph breaks to improve the readability.

The state's evidence shows that the defendant [Jason Oric Williams] had been living in the home of Gerald and Clair Paravicini in Irvington, for approximately two weeks before February 15, 1992, the date the crimes were committed. Before that, he had lived with his former wife, Sandra Ellzey, but she had forced him to move.

The Paravicinis, whom the appellant had known for several years, had allowed the appellant to move into their home because he had no place to live. Jeffery Carr, the minor son of Mrs. Paravicini, also lived in the home.

The appellant spent the evening of February 14 and the early morning hours of February 15, 1992, drinking alcohol and taking drugs. Around 6:00 a.m. on February 15, he arrived at the Paravicini home and was admitted by Jeffery Carr after knocking on a window. He called Ellzey on a portable telephone and while they were arguing, obtained Mr. Paravicini's.22 caliber automatic rifle and some hollow-point bullets from a bedroom. He then shot Jeffery Carr in the face and, as Mr. Paravicini came to Jeffery's aid, he shot Mr. Paravicini in the chest and neck.

Jeffery ran out of the house to seek help, and Mr. Paravicini ran into the street, where he died. The appellant demanded the keys to the Paravicinis' automobile from Mrs. Paravicini and when she did not produce them, he struck her in the face with the rifle, breaking her jaw and two teeth, and he threatened to kill her. He took her purse, which contained her checkbook, credit cards, and $530 cash, and ran to the road where he attempted to commandeer a passing truck driven by Buford Billedeaua. Billedeaua stopped his truck, but then took the keys and fled into the nearby woods as the appellant fired two shots at him.

The appellant then went to the nearby home of Linda and Fred Barber. The Barbers had two sons, Bryan and Brad, who lived with them and who were present in the home at the time. When Mrs. Barber opened the door, the appellant shot her, without warning, in the face and head, killing her instantly. He then shot Mr. Barber, who was sitting in the kitchen drinking coffee, twice in the head, killing him instantly. He then shot Bryan, who was asleep in his bed, twice in the head, killing him. Brad locked himself in a bedroom, but the appellant kicked the door in and while he and Brad were struggling over the rifle, Brad was shot in the left hand. Brad broke free and fled while the appellant continued to fire at him.

The appellant took the Barbers' vehicle, a Ford Aerostar van, along with Mr. Barber's wallet, which contained approximately $50, and Mrs. Barber's purse. He was apprehended the following day in Mississippi after he telephoned Ellzey. When he was apprehended, he was in possession of the Barbers' vehicle, in which were found .22 caliber bullets. After being properly advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), he was questioned about Mr. Paravicini's rifle, and he stated that he threw the rifle off a bridge into the water as he entered Mississippi. The rifle was never recovered.

The appellant presented the defense of insanity, he alleged, caused by severe drug abuse coupled with a preexisting mental disorder. ... The appellant testified in his defense that he did not remember anything about the incident from the time he telephoned Ellzey from the Paravicini home until he realized that he was in Mississippi in a strange vehicle with a rifle and with blood on his body. However, on cross-examination, he claimed that he was hallucinating at the time of the shootings: he thought he was being attacked by a "large apparition." In addition to presenting four witnesses who testified that the appellant had been drinking alcohol and taking drugs on the night before the shootings, he testified that he had been drinking alcohol and taking drugs during the hours preceding the shootings.

Given the certainty of William's factual guilt, I stand mute with respect to his execution.